The Battle for YE #1

[GameSetAndMath]

The key measure is whether a player is playing more tourneys than that will be counted.
Some players do this, to improve on their performance, if they did poorly.

No, Roger did not do that.

The ranking system counts, 4 GS, 8 Mandatory Masters and best 6 other tourneys.
Roger played exactly 6 other tourneys, viz., Brisbane, Montecarlo, Halle, Dubai, Basel and DC.
Actually, he missed one mandatory Masters, viz., Rome and so is at a disadvantage.

Novak played only 3 other tourneys viz., Dubai, Montecarlo, Beijing, while 6 are
allowed. That is his problem, if he chooses not to play as many tournaments as allowed.

 

[Denis]

Yeah no kidding, I hope you aren't penalizing him for playing a couple 250's before GS events where he won a whopping 400 points. And he has played the same number of 500's as Nole I think.

Yeah you are right. He mainly messed up during the masters probs. Still surprised how close it is.

 

[Denis]

The key measure is whether a player is playing more tourneys than that will be counted.
Some players do this, to improve on their performance, if they did poorly.

No, Roger did not do that.

The ranking system counts, 4 GS, 8 Mandatory Masters and best 6 other tourneys.
Roger played exactly 6 other tourneys, viz., Brisbane, Montecarlo, Halle, Dubai, Basel and DC.
Actually, he missed one mandatory Masters, viz., Rome and so is at a disadvantage.

Novak played only 3 other tourneys viz., Dubai, Montecarlo, Beijing, while 6 are
allowed. That is his problem, if he chooses not to play as many tournaments as allowed.

Also very true.

 

[El Dude]

Not including Paris and the Davis Cup, Novak has played in 13 tournaments, Roger 15. They've played in an equal number of Slams (4) and Masters (7). The difference is this: Roger played two more ATP 250 events.

Now let's look at those two events. Roger won one (250) and was a finalist in the other (150) - so that's a total of 400 points added.

So you could look at this in two ways:

1) Roger played a couple extra "cupcake" tournaments to get some extra points, a whopping 400 to be exact.
2) Roger was clever with his schedule, maximizing it so that he got the extra points he needed to be within distance of the year-end #1.

As to which one is "right," take your pick. I think both are true to some extent, but we're talking a grand total of 400 points. Sure, the Davis Cup counts for a couple hundred more. But you also have to factor in non-wins. Consider the total number of points won at ATP Masters:

Federer (inc. 2 wins) - 4025
Djokovic (inc. 3 wins) - 3900

If my calculations are correct, despite the fact that Novak won three Masters and Roger two, Roger still accrued 125 more points because his non-win results were superior. So you add that 125 to the Davis Cup (?) and the extra cupcake titles (400) and it partially makes up for Novak's better Slam results (2820 for Roger, 4280 for Novak).

 

[kskate2]

Not including Paris and the Davis Cup, Novak has played in 13 tournaments, Roger 15. They've played in an equal number of Slams (4) and Masters (7). The difference is this: Roger has played in one more ATP 500 events (2 to 1) and one more ATP 250 event (2 to 1).

Now let's look at those extra events. Novak won the only ATP 500 and ATP 250 events he played. Roger won one of each, and played in the semifinal of an ATP 500 and the final of an ATP 250. So if we cancel out the ATP 500 and 250 that they both won, the difference between the two is as follows:

Roger - ATP 500 semifinal (180), ATP 250 Final (150) - total 330 points

So you could look at this in two ways:

1) Roger played a couple extra "cupcake" tournaments to get some extra points, a whopping 330 to be exact.
2) Roger was clever with his schedule, maximizing it so that he got the extra points he needed to be within distance of the year-end #1.

As to which one is "right," take your pick. I think both are true to some extent, but we're talking a grand total of 330 points. Sure, the Davis Cup counts for a couple hundred more. But you also have to factor in non-wins. Consider the total number of points won at ATP Masters:

Federer (inc. 2 wins) - 4025
Djokovic (inc. 3 wins) - 3900

If my calculations are correct, despite the fact that Novak won three Masters and Roger two, Roger still accrued 125 more points because his non-win results were superior. So you add that 125 to the Davis Cup (?) and the extra cupcake titles (330) and it partially makes up for Novak's better Slam results (2820 for Roger, 4280 for Novak).

Isn't Dubai a 500? Didn't Fed beat Novak in the SF there?

 

[El Dude]

You're right, I mixed up a couple things. I'll fix my post.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Contrary to what many people expect, the YE #1 may not come down to DC this year as well.
It might get completely settled by the end of WTF (independent of who gets YE #1). Either
Roger should lead by 5 points or Novak should lead by 380 point at the end of WTF in order
for the race to be settled by the end of WTF.

I don't expect Roger and Novak to clash with each other in both Paris and London.
They are probably going to clash with each other in only one of the two places and that match
is probably going to decide the race. Whenever they meet, it will be in the finals (although
they could possibly meet in SF at WTF due to RR format in each group) and that would
involve a diff of about 400 points in Paris and 500 points in London.

Some of you might recall that last year we were discussing about the possibility of
Tipsarevic tanking a DC final match so that he could make Novak's second rubber live
and so that Novak get extra points if needed (in fact somebody called him Tanksoraevic).
Finally, it turned out that no such drama was needed as Novak finished off the job.

Similarly, this year we are talking about the possibility that Stan may have to
tank a match or if he wins his match, the Swiss may have to tank the doubles
(actually, I think one of these two will happen naturally without tanking), to make
sure that Roger's second rubber is live.

However, most probably the race would be over by the end of WTF one way or other.

If it gets decided after DC only, this would be first time it ever happened.

 

[mrzz]

Now let's look at those two events. Roger won one (250) and was a finalist in the other (150) - so that's a total of 400 points added.

And consider still that those two are GS warmup events.

 

[Billie]

Some of you might recall that last year we were discussing about the possibility of
Tipsarevic tanking a DC final match so that he could make Novak's second rubber live
and so that Novak get extra points if needed (in fact somebody called him Tanksoraevic).
Finally, it turned out that no such drama was needed as Novak finished off the job.

I am interested to know who you discussed this with since Janko hasn't played in over a year (and even before that the whole season he was struggling with his chronic heel issues) and definitely was not in the Serbian DC team for the final last year, Nole had young guy Dusan, Ilija Bozoljac and Zimonjic. After the doubles the Czech players were up 2:1 so I don't see how Janko could have tanked anything even if he were in the team.uzzled

 

[Billie]

The key measure is whether a player is playing more tourneys than that will be counted.
Some players do this, to improve on their performance, if they did poorly.

No, Roger did not do that.

The ranking system counts, 4 GS, 8 Mandatory Masters and best 6 other tourneys.
Roger played exactly 6 other tourneys, viz., Brisbane, Montecarlo, Halle, Dubai, Basel and DC.
Actually, he missed one mandatory Masters, viz., Rome and so is at a disadvantage.

Novak played only 3 other tourneys viz., Dubai, Montecarlo, Beijing, while 6 are
allowed. That is his problem, if he chooses not to play as many tournaments as allowed.

Yup, it is Nole's problem that he only played 2 500 events (and Monte Carlo that counts as a 500 event) and nothing else, not 250, not DC. At least nobody will accuse him of chasing the points. But it is also his problem that he so underperformed at 2 NAHC summer masters. Last year he won every single match and title that he could in the fall and still lost his #1 ranking because Nadal did enough to take over.

This year it is different, this time the decision is only on Nole's racquet, so if he wins the last 2 tourneys, he will remain #1 regardless of what Federer does. That is the difference between last and this year.

But in a state that he is, I am not sure what to expect from Nole, hopefully that he will fight hard for it and not bail out meekly as he sometimes does.:snigger

 

[Kieran]

Some of you might recall that last year we were discussing about the possibility of
Tipsarevic tanking a DC final match so that he could make Novak's second rubber live
and so that Novak get extra points if needed (in fact somebody called him Tanksoraevic).
Finally, it turned out that no such drama was needed as Novak finished off the job.

I am interested to know who you discussed this with since Janko hasn't played in over a year (and even before that the whole season he was struggling with his chronic heel issues) and definitely was not in the Serbian DC team for the final last year, Nole had young guy Dusan, Ilija Bozoljac and Zimonjic. After the doubles the Czech players were up 2:1 so I don't see how Janko could have tanked anything even if he were in the team.uzzled

There was talk of it last year, Billie, for sure. I think that bright genius Mastoor may have been involved, but it was definitely an "option" people were looking at...

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Some of you might recall that last year we were discussing about the possibility of
Tipsarevic tanking a DC final match so that he could make Novak's second rubber live
and so that Novak get extra points if needed (in fact somebody called him Tanksoraevic).
Finally, it turned out that no such drama was needed as Novak finished off the job.

I am interested to know who you discussed this with since Janko hasn't played in over a year (and even before that the whole season he was struggling with his chronic heel issues) and definitely was not in the Serbian DC team for the final last year, Nole had young guy Dusan, Ilija Bozoljac and Zimonjic. After the doubles the Czech players were up 2:1 so I don't see how Janko could have tanked anything even if he were in the team.uzzled

That discussion happened about 2 months or so before DC and there was expectation
at that time that Tipsy will come back for the DCF.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

The key measure is whether a player is playing more tourneys than that will be counted.
Some players do this, to improve on their performance, if they did poorly.

No, Roger did not do that.

The ranking system counts, 4 GS, 8 Mandatory Masters and best 6 other tourneys.
Roger played exactly 6 other tourneys, viz., Brisbane, Montecarlo, Halle, Dubai, Basel and DC.
Actually, he missed one mandatory Masters, viz., Rome and so is at a disadvantage.

Novak played only 3 other tourneys viz., Dubai, Montecarlo, Beijing, while 6 are
allowed. That is his problem, if he chooses not to play as many tournaments as allowed.

Yup, it is Nole's problem that he only played 2 500 events (and Monte Carlo that counts as a 500

Nole played in 3 500 events, Montecarlo, Dubai and Beijing.

 

[El Dude]

Monte Carlo is 1000.

 

[tented]

Monte Carlo is 1000.

Yes and no.

From the ATP Rulebook:

"For commitment and ranking purposes, the Monte Carlo Masters 1000, London Queens and Halle will be included in the minimum requirements for the 500 category."

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Monte Carlo is 1000.

Yes and no.

From the ATP Rulebook:

"For commitment and ranking purposes, the Monte Carlo Masters 1000, London Queens and Halle will be included in the minimum requirements for the 500 category."

You are right. But, Queens and Hale only from next year.

 

[El Dude]

But it awards up to 1000 points, so it really shouldn't be considered a "500 event." I think it only says that because it is the only Masters 1000 that isn't required, but it is still a Masters 1000.

 

[tented]

But it awards up to 1000 points, so it really shouldn't be considered a "500 event." I think it only says that because it is the only Masters 1000 that isn't required, but it is still a Masters 1000.

Exactly.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

This has been like this since 2009. I don't know why folks are arguing over it now.

Monte Carlo

1. Awards 1000 points.
2. Is non-mandatory.
3. Counts as 500 event for commitment purposes.

 

[Kieran]

I'm going to be out later, so perhaps somebody will update this?