Roger Year-End #!

[mightyjeditribble]

Also, every year since the current ranking points structure was introduced in 2009, the year-end world #1 has had over 10000 ranking points, usually by a considerable margin.

Good point. But my question is, how many points did the #1 have at this point in the year? Let's take a look at ATP Race points through the Miami Masters:

2016: Andy Murray 1565 (Novak had 4340)
2015: Novak 4385
2014: Novak 2690
2013: Rafa 1900
2012: Novak 3540
2011: Novak 4500
2010: Rafa 1230
2009: Roger 2010

But none of them were 35-36 years old, and planning to take a two-month break in the middle of the season ...

The only two players who have a legit shot at 10,000 points are probably Roger and Rafa. I mean I suppose Stan could get hot and win two Slams, but even then he'd have to win a few other big tournaments and we've never seen him that consistent. For Andy or Novak to get there, they'd have to at least win two Slams (4000 pts), several Masters/WTF (3000-3500), and go deep almost everyone else. It is possible, but we've seen zero sign that it will happen, at least on that level of dominance.

Andy is still on over 10000 points in the rankings. So if he was to match his results from last year until the end of the year, he'd still be on over 10000. Likewise, Novak is on nearly 8000 despite having almost no result at Wimbledon. Both of them are defending just one GS title in that period, so in principle they're clearly capable of doing it (even without winning two GS).

Now, their form so far this year doesn't give any indication this will happen - but the year is young. Hence my point is that Roger would need some help from them, in the form of a lower level of form than we know they are capable of, in order to return to the top of the rankings.

Unless Fed wins another GS this year, I really struggle to see a realistic route to #1. Even if he does, it is no guarantee (Novak won 2 last year, and still ended it #2). It is also clear by now, if it wasn't before, that #1 is not a serious goal of Fed at the moment. He'll put everything into winning Wimbledon. If he does that, then let's talk again.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Fed will not be modifying his schedule based on the lure for #1 ranking. His primary motivation would be to remain healthy and to peak for Wimbledon and USO. After the USO, if the situation demands (i.e., #1 is within reach but requires some work), he may throw in some extra junk tourneys. But, he is not going to do anything crazy at this time and jeopardize his chances at Wimby or USO.

 

[El Dude]

Fair enough, although you keep reference current ranking points, which are irrelevant to the year-end #1. For that we should be looking at Race to London points only.

But just to be clear: Andy was on fire in the second half of last year. For him to equal that performance level would be unlikely, especially considering that unlike last year he'll have a resurgent Federer and Nadal to deal with, and that he has shown signs of slippage when he has played.

Similarly with Novak: current ranking points mean nothing for him, and in order for him to surge and get 10k points he'd have to return to his peak form. If we saw some inkling of that I'd be singing a different tune, but we haven't.

Again, I'm not saying that Andy and Novak won't comeback - I think they will. But in order to catch Roger, they'll have to dominate AND Roger will have to really fade. I'm not saying Roger can just coast to YE1--he can't--just that he has a legitimate shot at it.

 

[El Dude]

Fed will not be modifying his schedule based on the lure for #1 ranking. His primary motivation would be to remain healthy and to peak for Wimbledon and USO. After the USO, if the situation demands (i.e., #1 is within reach but requires some work), he may throw in some extra junk tourneys. But, he is not going to do anything crazy at this time and jeopardize his chances at Wimby or USO.

I agree. I think he sticks to his planned schedule, with or without Rome. He's going for the Serena approach of optimizing his chances at big tournaments. Even if he wanted to throw in extra tournaments, there really isn't much on the schedule later in the year; I don't see him playing Washington after Wimby, for instance, or Beijing or Tokyo later on. The extra tournaments are the clay Masters, which it seems he'll either play none or maybe one.

But again, he doesn't necessarily need to pad his schedule to have a chance at YE1 - he just needs to do well at the tournaments he plays in, and win at least a couple more big tournaments. Even if he doesn't win anything big between now and the USO, he still could accrue another 2-3,000 points quite easily and be in the mix for YE1, with quite a few points still to be won at Shanghai, Basel, Paris, and the WTF.

But as mightjeditribble says, we'll know more after Wimbledon.

 

[Shivashish Sarkar]

Given that Roger's playing only RG mostly. He will have only 2000 points to play for. And out of that, an optimistic results would be SF. Even that is difficult.

I think Roger should play Rome.

Let's assume he gets to the QF there.

So, adding both he would have 900 points from the clay season and that is 4945 points going into Wimbledon.

It would be reasonable to think of the following results:

Stuttgart - 150
Halle - 500
Wimbledon - 1200
Canada - 180
Cincinatti - 1000
US Open - 720
Shanghai - 600
Basel - 500
Paris - 600
WTF - 1000

Ends up with - 11395

That's a pretty good amount of points to end up with. Stan cannot make it to there. Rafa will make it interesting. Djokovic or Murray simply needs to play too well to amass that much points. It's going to be very difficult for them.

Djokovic will have to play like he did in 2015. The battle should have mainly Roger and Rafa. Roger should stay healthy though.

 

[mightyjeditribble]

Given that Roger's playing only RG mostly. He will have only 2000 points to play for. And out of that, an optimistic results would be SF. Even that is difficult.

I think Roger should play Rome.

Let's assume he gets to the QF there.

So, adding both he would have 900 points from the clay season and that is 4945 points going into Wimbledon.

It would be reasonable to think of the following results:

Stuttgart - 150
Halle - 500
Wimbledon - 1200
Canada - 180
Cincinatti - 1000
US Open - 720
Shanghai - 600
Basel - 500
Paris - 600
WTF - 1000

Ends up with - 11395

That's a pretty good amount of points to end up with. Stan cannot make it to there. Rafa will make it interesting. Djokovic or Murray simply needs to play too well to amass that much points. It's going to be very difficult for them.

Djokovic will have to play like he did in 2015. The battle should have mainly Roger and Rafa. Roger should stay healthy though.

You've got Fed playing Roma, as well as both Canada & Cincinnati (consecutive weeks). You've also got him reaching QF in every event that he enters, and SF with two exceptions. When is the last time he has managed that?

I'm not saying it's not possible. It just doesn't seem likely. And I think, as Fed fans, we should be realistic. He has already far exceeded expectations this season, which is wonderful. But to expect top results sustained throughout a whole season at his age seems unrealistic.

Happy to be proved wrong, of course!!!

 

[El Dude]

Yeah, shivashish, I think that is a bit optimistic. We should start with a schedule that doesn't include Rome or Canada; frankly I wouldn't be surprised if he withdraws from Stuttgart, although I know he's under contract there. It seems like a bad idea, doing back to back tournaments and in Halle, right before Wimbledon.

Another way to break this up would be by tournament type; here's a moderate outlook - that is, not optimistic but assuming no major decline, but more like 2014-15:

Grand Slams (3): Final, SF, QF (1200 + 720 + 360 = 2080)
WTF: SF (600)
Masters (4): F, SF, QF, 3R (600 + 360 + 180 + 45 = 1185)
ATP 500 (2): W, SF (500 + 180 = 680)
ATP 250: F (150)

That's assuming only one more title, an ATP 500, and 4,695 points. Add that to his current total of 4,045, and you've got 8,740. Maybe not enough to be #1, but certainly enough to be #2 and have a shot at #1 if one of those Slam results becomes a W, or better Masters results.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Fed will not be modifying his schedule based on the lure for #1 ranking. His primary motivation would be to remain healthy and to peak for Wimbledon and USO. After the USO, if the situation demands (i.e., #1 is within reach but requires some work), he may throw in some extra junk tourneys. But, he is not going to do anything crazy at this time and jeopardize his chances at Wimby or USO.

I agree. I think he sticks to his planned schedule, with or without Rome. He's going for the Serena approach of optimizing his chances at big tournaments. Even if he wanted to throw in extra tournaments, there really isn't much on the schedule later in the year; I don't see him playing Washington after Wimby, for instance, or Beijing or Tokyo later on. The extra tournaments are the clay Masters, which it seems he'll either play none or maybe one.

But again, he doesn't necessarily need to pad his schedule to have a chance at YE1 - he just needs to do well at the tournaments he plays in, and win at least a couple more big tournaments. Even if he doesn't win anything big between now and the USO, he still could accrue another 2-3,000 points quite easily and be in the mix for YE1, with quite a few points still to be won at Shanghai, Basel, Paris, and the WTF.

But as mightjeditribble says, we'll know more after Wimbledon.

No way he will play Washington (if at all he wants to add one more before USO, it will be Canada)
. I was talking about adding junk tourneys only after USO. Of course, there is not much room. He can add Tokyo 500 and/or Stockholm 250 for the purposes of padding up.

 

[mightyjeditribble]

If you listen to his interview on court after Miami, Fed isn't even committing to definitely playing the French - he said "if that at all". So I guess, in his current thinking at least, he'd be more likely to skip the French than to play Rome.

We'll see.

 

[mightyjeditribble]

Good point. But my question is, how many points did the #1 have at this point in the year? Let's take a look at ATP Race points through the Miami Masters:

2016: Andy Murray 1565 (Novak had 4340)
2015: Novak 4385
2014: Novak 2690
2013: Rafa 1900
2012: Novak 3540
2011: Novak 4500
2010: Rafa 1230
2009: Roger 2010

Given that Fed is skipping most if not all of the clay season, we should look at Race points post-FO. The ATP website doesn't seem to have history for the race before 2014, so I only found those. How did you get the data above?

2016: Andy Murray 4725 (Novak had 7950)
2015: Novak 7585
2014: Novak 5250 (Rafa had 6465)

 

[mightyjeditribble]

Fair enough, although you keep reference current ranking points, which are irrelevant to the year-end #1. For that we should be looking at Race to London points only.

But just to be clear: Andy was on fire in the second half of last year. For him to equal that performance level would be unlikely, especially considering that unlike last year he'll have a resurgent Federer and Nadal to deal with, and that he has shown signs of slippage when he has played.

Similarly with Novak: current ranking points mean nothing for him, and in order for him to surge and get 10k points he'd have to return to his peak form. If we saw some inkling of that I'd be singing a different tune, but we haven't.

Again, I'm not saying that Andy and Novak won't comeback - I think they will. But in order to catch Roger, they'll have to dominate AND Roger will have to really fade. I'm not saying Roger can just coast to YE1--he can't--just that he has a legitimate shot at it.

So it seems that we agree that Fed probably won't make it to #1 unless Andy & Novak continue to play below the level they showed before this year. (And he also has to play great.)

 

[GameSetAndMath]

As Fed himself said and as is self evident, if Fed wins another Slam he becomes a serious (almost a shoe in) contender for the YE#1. Of course, history has a few examples of folks who won two GS and still did not finish #1 (including in last year). But, that is more of an exception than a rule.

So, Fed can worry about winning Wimbledon first, which is obviously his first priority.

 

[El Dude]

Given that Fed is skipping most if not all of the clay season, we should look at Race points post-FO. The ATP website doesn't seem to have history for the race before 2014, so I only found those. How did you get the data above?

I just added up their results through Miami in each year. It took a few minutes, but not too bad.

So it seems that we agree that Fed probably won't make it to #1 unless Andy & Novak continue to play below the level they showed before this year. (And he also has to play great.)

Almost, yes. But it is a matter of degree, or a spectrum - I'd probably put the likelihood higher than you.

Roger's route to year-end #1 is:

1) He continues to play like he's played so far, which will mean at least one more Slam title and one or two more Masters/the World Tour Finals. If he wins a Slam, the WTF, and just one more Masters, that's another 4500 points, so over 8,500. Add in an ATP 500 and second week Slam results at the other two and solid results at the others, and he's well over 10,000 points and wins the YE1.

or

2) Roger returns to 2014-15 form AND Andy and Novak don't find their peak forms AND Rafa slows after clay. In this scenario he doesn't win another Slam but goes deep in all (~2000 points), wins one more Masters or the WTF (1000-1500), maybe an ATP 500. That brings him up to 8-9,000 points, which may be enough if the other three don't surge.

I think the difference between what you and I are saying is the likelihood that one or the other the two scenarios will happen. I'd give him about a 50-50 chance at this point.

 

[mightyjeditribble]

I think the difference between what you and I are saying is the likelihood that one or the other the two scenarios will happen. I'd give him about a 50-50 chance at this point.

Yes, I do think 50-50 is pretty optimistic.

But then again, there's not really enough data to make confident statements about probabilities, so it just comes down to opinions. Given how dominant Murray and Djokovic have been, it is hard to see them both not bouncing back from their disappointing starts to the year.

Then again, in 2014 Fed was not so far from reaching #1. He reached the QF in all events outside clay that he entered. Djokovic was just too strong. If Novak's form had dipped a little that year, Fed would have likely ended up on top. Now, Fed is three years older, but he does have a head-start in terms of results. Even so, it just seems like a tall order at this point.

 

[El Dude]

Yes, I think Novak and Andy will bounce back, but to what level? That is the crucial question. They're both far enough behind that they have to significantly out-play Roger (and Rafa) for the rest of the year. The problem for both is that they're not just competing against Roger, but each other and Rafa and the rest of the field, so unless they are super-dominant and/or Roger collapses, it is going to be hard to catch up the old maestro with that 3,000++ point advantage.

Now the good news for Andy, Novak, and moreso, Rafa, is that Roger won't be playing for the next couple months, which includes three Masters, an ATP 500, and a bunch of ATP 250s. But theoretically those three could win as much as 3500 points; it is unlikely that any one player earns that much before Roland Garros, but that's what is up for grabs in a "Roger-free" period of time (assuming Roger skips Rome) - not counting the ATP 250s, most of which are concurrent with bigger tournaments. If any of those three are going to catch Roger, they need to get some points during this next stretch, and continue playing well after.

For Rafa to get the YE#1, he needs to be significantly ahead of Roger before grass season starts,I would say by at least 1,000. That means earning maybe 3,000 more than Roger during clay season. Certainly possible, but not a foregone conclusion.

For Novak or Andy to get the YE#1, they have a similar task: do well in clay season and improve until the end of the year. Both would need to win at least one Slam and two or three Masters, plus probably the WTF to clinch it.

Regardless, I think we'll have a better sense of things after Roland Garros. If Rafa doesn't do very well during clay season, he has virtually no chance of the YE1. If Novak or Andy don't at least hold their own and earn a couple thousand points, I don't see them catching Roger.

 

[mrzz]

^I guess El Dude summed it up. Federer has basically two allies on his run to #1: himself (another slam might just do it) and the competition between the other three (let alone people like Wawrinka, del Potro and the new guys). By the way, if one of these guys steal one slam, Federer´s chances go up quite a bit.

 

[Fiero425]

^I guess El Dude summed it up. Federer has basically two allies on his run to #1: himself (another slam might just do it) and the competition between the other three (let alone people like Wawrinka, del Potro and the new guys). By the way, if one of these guys steal one slam, Federer´s chances go up quite a bit.

This is about as topsy turvy as anything I can remember with the rankings, the players, and the situation! At no time in the Open Era can I compare NOW save Connors "rising from the ashes" in '82 to take Wimbledon & US Open; then acquiring the #1 ranking! After '78, he was relegated to 5th wheel IMB with Borg, McEnroe, & a newbie who led the WCT tour by the name of Ivan Lendl! When Connors fell to Vitas G. in the semi's of the '80 FO, I figured he was done! He had never lost to the guy and that's a sure sign you've overstayed your welcome! As old as Laver and Rosewall were back then in the mid 70's, they still owned top players like Ashe & Nastase respectively! I couldn't understand it at 18-19 years old! Nastase won once that I can remember over "Muscles" and it was only one of those TV events with RR where they initially played on clay! Ilie won that match over Rosewall, but the rematch on HC in the final, the old man made him look bad! Rosewall won last set at love IIRC! I'll go look it up! Might have been Hong Kong Tennis Classic in '76! :nono :angel: :cover - - - - https://fiero4251.blogspot.com/2017/02/whats-up-topic-22-entries-317-on.html?showComment=1491270820943#c7419166945174928276 - - - -

 

[El Dude]

It is truly unusual times, isn't it? I decided to start a separate post, here:

http://www.tennisfrontier.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=5391

 

[Kieran]

^I guess El Dude summed it up. Federer has basically two allies on his run to #1: himself (another slam might just do it) and the competition between the other three (let alone people like Wawrinka, del Potro and the new guys). By the way, if one of these guys steal one slam, Federer´s chances go up quite a bit.

This is about as topsy turvy as anything I can remember with the rankings, the players, and the situation! At no time in the Open Era can I compare NOW save Connors "rising from the ashes" in '82 to take Wimbledon & US Open; then acquiring the #1 ranking! After '78, he was relegated to 5th wheel IMB with Borg, McEnroe, & a newbie who led the WCT tour by the name of Ivan Lendl! When Connors fell to Vitas G. in the semi's of the '80 FO, I figured he was done! He had never lost to the guy and that's a sure sign you've overstayed your welcome! As old as Laver and Rosewall were back then in the mid 70's, they still owned top players like Ashe & Nastase respectively! I couldn't understand it at 18-19 years old! Nastase won once that I can remember over "Muscles" and it was only one of those TV events with RR where they initially played on clay! Ilie won that match over Rosewall, but the rematch on HC in the final, the old man made him look bad! Rosewall won last set at love IIRC! I'll go look it up! Might have been Hong Kong Tennis Classic in '76! :nono :angel: :cover - - - - https://fiero4251.blogspot.com/2017/02/whats-up-topic-22-entries-317-on.html?showComment=1491270820943#c7419166945174928276 - - - -

Jimmy Connors was only 29-30 when he "rose from the ashes" in 1982, so what he did at that aged wasn't what I would deem "physically impossible." It wasn't even remarkable, and was surely down to Borg's absence, and McEnroe's inability to keep his focus while he was pining romantically for Borg (to hammer again). Connors didn't have so many miles on the clock, though he married a Playboy centrefold, so his energy levels were prolly depleted for a few seasons. :devil

Nastase, Ashe, these are players who are more famous than "great". They won slams, but they had their fragilities, though Ilie is probably - just after McEnroe - the most naturally gifted tennis player I've ever seen...

 

[Busted]

In fact, no matter the result on sunday, one thing is almost certain: Nadal will be leading the race after the clay season.

Are we taking bets on this? Cuz...I don't think he will be. I think he hopes getting back on clay will cure some obvious problems with his game - but it won't. He's been exceedingly lucky to have not had to play either Murray or Djokovic in addition to Roger. If he plays Djokovic - he'll lose. Nole has Nadals' number the way Nadal used to have Roger's. Murray is a toss up.