The Rankings Thread (ATP)

[masterclass]

No apologies needed, Masterclass, and thanks for those clips!

I wouldn't set huge store in the results of those exos, given how much Mac tried to persuade Borg to return to the tour. Borg's departure negatively affected McEnroe too. However, I didn't say Mac was the sole reason Borg scarpered. He was a large contributory factor though. Borg couldn't handle Mac in 1981 and needed to reboot his whole game to cope with him. The US Open final was fairly brutal once Mac got going. The effort required to get back to the top and the need for rest hastened Borgie away from mainstream tennis.

If he couldn't be best, he'd find it hard, and I don't think he believed he could ever be best again...

Hmm, I wouldn't dismiss what you call "exos" so easily. Many of those invitationals and small tournaments and such at that time were taken much more seriously by the players of the day than the players today take exhibition matches. Just because they weren't part of the Grand Prix or ATP or ITF doesn't mean they weren't giving a full effort. Look at the money they made for winning. Some of these events were even a winner take all purse. Though the tournaments usually did put up some appearance money, it was nothing compared to the purse.

Really, it's hard to compare those days (early to mid Open era) to today. Today (and since the mid-90's) there is so much emphasis on the slams and Masters and rankings points. Back in the day, it wasn't a big deal to skip a major, especially the Australian Open, unless you were Australian. Nobody was focused in on counting slam wins then as they are today. Sure, they had their importance, but it was just different. The sport was fragmented with different organizers running things, contracts, promoters, etc. Rankings were done by humans (tennis journalists, promoters, players associations), not the computer. I'm not saying it was better or worse, just different.

Anyway, many will have their own opinion of what happened with Borg, and how much influence McEnroe had on his departure, but I tend to pretty much believe what Borg, his coach Lennart Bergelin, and those in the know like Mats Wilander have said about it. McEnroe and some other younger players may have been a bit of a factor in increasing the competition and difficulty of winning, but that's not the primary factor.

Wilander said:

"What happened to Bjorn Borg is that the ITF organized the Grand Prix Tour with eight tournaments imposed on the players. Maybe Borg didn't know exactly which tournament he wanted to go to, and he didn't sign. So the rules were that he had to qualify for Roland Garros, even though he had won it four times in a row (six titles in eight tournaments) and he was then number one in the ATP ranking... French Open organizers did try to make money out of his qualifying games by selling tickets on a big court at Jean Bouin. Bjorn Borg didn't accept that and decided not to play again. Of course, he knew there were young players who could beat him, like McEnroe, but this is not the explanation for why he quit the tour."

Overall, I think it's a combination of factors that include the increased competition.

But maybe Baron Britbox or someone with connections can organize a Bjorn Borg interview and somebody here will ask him the question for the 10000th time.

Respectfully,
masterclass

 

[Fiero425]

No apologies needed, Masterclass, and thanks for those clips!

I wouldn't set huge store in the results of those exos, given how much Mac tried to persuade Borg to return to the tour. Borg's departure negatively affected McEnroe too. However, I didn't say Mac was the sole reason Borg scarpered. He was a large contributory factor though. Borg couldn't handle Mac in 1981 and needed to reboot his whole game to cope with him. The US Open final was fairly brutal once Mac got going. The effort required to get back to the top and the need for rest hastened Borgie away from mainstream tennis.

If he couldn't be best, he'd find it hard, and I don't think he believed he could ever be best again...

Hmm, I wouldn't dismiss what you call "exos" so easily. Many of those invitationals and small tournaments and such at that time were taken much more seriously by the players of the day than the players today take exhibition matches. Just because they weren't part of the Grand Prix or ATP or ITF doesn't mean they weren't giving a full effort. Look at the money they made for winning. Some of these events were even a winner take all purse. Though the tournaments usually did put up some appearance money, it was nothing compared to the purse.

Really, it's hard to compare those days (early to mid Open era) to today. Today (and since the mid-90's) there is so much emphasis on the slams and Masters and rankings points. Back in the day, it wasn't a big deal to skip a major, especially the Australian Open, unless you were Australian. Nobody was focused in on counting slam wins then as they are today. Sure, they had their importance, but it was just different. The sport was fragmented with different organizers running things, contracts, promoters, etc. Rankings were done by humans (tennis journalists, promoters, players associations), not the computer. I'm not saying it was better or worse, just different.

Anyway, many will have their own opinion of what happened with Borg, and how much influence McEnroe had on his departure, but I tend to pretty much believe what Borg, his coach Lennart Bergelin, and those in the know like Mats Wilander have said about it. McEnroe and some other younger players may have been a bit of a factor in increasing the competition and difficulty of winning, but that's not the primary factor.

Wilander said:

"What happened to Bjorn Borg is that the ITF organized the Grand Prix Tour with eight tournaments imposed on the players. Maybe Borg didn't know exactly which tournament he wanted to go to, and he didn't sign. So the rules were that he had to qualify for Roland Garros, even though he had won it four times in a row (six titles in eight tournaments) and he was then number one in the ATP ranking... French Open organizers did try to make money out of his qualifying games by selling tickets on a big court at Jean Bouin. Bjorn Borg didn't accept that and decided not to play again. Of course, he knew there were young players who could beat him, like McEnroe, but this is not the explanation for why he quit the tour."

Overall, I think it's a combination of factors that include the increased competition.

But maybe Baron Britbox or someone with connections can organize a Bjorn Borg interview and somebody here will ask him the question for the 10000th time.

Respectfully,
masterclass

Maybe after all this explanation, I'll never see that BS of McEnroe beat Bjorn down and out of the game! That's so insulting to a great champion like Borg! I hadn't heard the qualifying for the FO and those idiots trying to make money off of it! I knew about the minimum number of tourneys was the main reason; understood, but look at what happened! Was it worth it in the end? You have some players (I won't name name) who fain injury or are suspended and that's ok, but to be honest and say "I need to cut my schedule; I'm burned out," you're run out of the game!

 

[Kieran]

Overall, I think it's a combination of factors that include the increased competition.

That's what I say. Mac wasn't the sole reason but a contributing factor. The effort required to stay top was too much for Bjorn. I believe the politics in some ways gave him an "out", because let's face it, if he wanted to commit he would.

As for asking players, try your luck! But be wary of their replies. I mean, Roger would tell you it's always on his racket! :Lolz:

EDIT: just for the record, as I said above, Borg was my first tennis idol. I hated Mac and Jimbo with a fretful passion, so I'm not denigrating Borg to build up an impression of Mac, but my view is that the politics were not the only thing, and a lot of it had to do with motivation, burn out, and the fact that his rival was all over him...

 

[JesuslookslikeBorg]

Hmm, regarding Borg, I think JLLB has it about right from what I recall.

Contrary to popular folklore, the 1981 Wimbledon/US Open losses to McEnroe per se did not cause Borg to stop playing slams. I do agree that it certainly may have looked like that to the average fan, since he never played a major again. But after all, he had lost to McEnroe and Connors at the US Open before - and he ended up never winning the US Open title. He quickly walked off the court at the 1981 US Open because he had received death threats. One came on Saturday before his semi match with Jimmy Connors, whom he easily dispatched, but Borg was not told about it till after the match. The second call threat came Sunday as Borg won the first set against McEnroe. They didn't tell Borg and his coach until after the match and security quickly whisked him away and he cancelled all personal appearances after that (Monday as well). Read more.

Though it seems to many that Borg retired in 1981 (because he never played a major again), he did continue to practice/play, and did not officially announce his retirement from professional tennis until January 1983. Why did Borg not play in any majors after the 1981 U.S. Open and retired in Jan 1983? Was it because he was intimidated by or scared of McEnroe, or felt he couldn't beat him because he lost to him at Wimbledon/US Open? Balderdash.

The real reason was that the ITF ruled that any player must participate in a minimum number of Grand Prix Tour sanctioned tournaments (I believe 8) in order to avoid having to play in the qualifying rounds at the Grand Slams. Borg, the four-time defending champion at Roland Garros, who won a then record six French Opens overall, and also won a record five straight Wimbledon Championships, did not feel like he should have to play in qualifiers under any circumstances. So, in 1982 he skipped the Grand Slams, rather than comply to the rule, and skipped other tournaments as well. For this reason, and because he was burnt out somewhat after playing professionally for 11-12 years (he turned professional at age 14 in 1971- won Davis Cup debut match at age 15 in 1972 - and never lost a DC singles match again post 1973), and wanted to reduce his schedule.

However, Borg continued training and playing in 1982 (non ITF/ATP events), and if anything, his game was actually getting better in some ways at 26. He became stronger and he was serving harder than he ever had before. He won four big money (non ITF/ATP) events in 1982. If you are still convinced that Borg could no longer handle McEnroe after the US Open in September in 1981, look at what happened in November 1982 in the Sydney Akai Gold Challenge Round Robin, on carpet, no less. And don't forget that the Akai tournament prize money fund at that time was bigger than the slams. Borg defeated the #1 ranked McEnroe, 3-6, 6-4, 7-5, 6-2. He also dismantled Ivan Lendl, who would become the #1 ranked player a few months later, 6-1, 6-4, 6-2, along with Vitas Gerulaitis 7-6 6-3 6-2. For that effort, Borg pocketed $150,000 plus a $30,000 gold racquet. The 1982 US Open winner's prize was $90,000.

After that, there wasn't a whole lot of motivation for him to play longer except in some exhibitions. Don't count his appearance in his backyard at Monte-Carlo where he played for fun. He had done almost everything of which he had thought himself capable, except for not winning a US Open, where it just didn't happen for him, despite making 4 finals. But he no longer had the relentless drive to keep him playing and also defy the tour organizers.

At the time, pro tennis was not as "professional", or organized as today. There was no single ATP tour, there was a lot of infighting between the various organizations trying to control the players, and this led to bans by tournaments and boycotts by the players. What do I mean by relentless drive in Borg's case? Simply, it didn't mean as much to him to lose anymore. Not to mention he was fed up with the whole s**t, everyone that wanted a piece of him, the organizations, media, and as a global superstar, being pestered by everyone all over the world with only his coach as a buffer, which often wasn't enough.

Borg said he used to absolutely hate to lose, but that after he lost Wimbledon in 1981, he wasn't upset and he was shocked that he wasn't upset. And at that point, he knew that "something" special in him had gone. He was almost relieved to lose. Call it what you will, spark, passion, desire, fight; without it, you are not the same. Sometimes an absence from the game for a time, as long as the absence is not overly long, helps some to rekindle the flame, but other times not. Borg essentially left the game near the top.

As Arthur Ashe once said, "he might have won the US Open, or even a Grand Slam, but by the time he left, the historical challenge didn't mean anything. He was bigger than the game, like Elvis or Elizabeth Taylor or somebody".

Here are some clips, albeit poor quality, of the Borg-McEnroe match in Sydney in Nov 1982.

[video=youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jFXnTGqbwsU[/video]

[video=youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=918rp7Omjk0[/video]

[video=youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kger-33YtiY[/video]

My apologies if I've rambled on a bit...

Respectfully,
masterclass

masterclass provides a masterclass.

yes borg couldnt switch off from tennis, all that tennis since his mid teens, never mind all those unofficial tourneys /exhibitions he played helped push him out..

but the ITF were witless gimps..and BORG WAS GONE.

 

[Fiero425]

Hmm, regarding Borg, I think JLLB has it about right from what I recall.

Contrary to popular folklore, the 1981 Wimbledon/US Open losses to McEnroe per se did not cause Borg to stop playing slams. I do agree that it certainly may have looked like that to the average fan, since he never played a major again. But after all, he had lost to McEnroe and Connors at the US Open before - and he ended up never winning the US Open title. He quickly walked off the court at the 1981 US Open because he had received death threats. One came on Saturday before his semi match with Jimmy Connors, whom he easily dispatched, but Borg was not told about it till after the match. The second call threat came Sunday as Borg won the first set against McEnroe. They didn't tell Borg and his coach until after the match and security quickly whisked him away and he cancelled all personal appearances after that (Monday as well). Read more.

Though it seems to many that Borg retired in 1981 (because he never played a major again), he did continue to practice/play, and did not officially announce his retirement from professional tennis until January 1983. Why did Borg not play in any majors after the 1981 U.S. Open and retired in Jan 1983? Was it because he was intimidated by or scared of McEnroe, or felt he couldn't beat him because he lost to him at Wimbledon/US Open? Balderdash.

The real reason was that the ITF ruled that any player must participate in a minimum number of Grand Prix Tour sanctioned tournaments (I believe 8) in order to avoid having to play in the qualifying rounds at the Grand Slams. Borg, the four-time defending champion at Roland Garros, who won a then record six French Opens overall, and also won a record five straight Wimbledon Championships, did not feel like he should have to play in qualifiers under any circumstances. So, in 1982 he skipped the Grand Slams, rather than comply to the rule, and skipped other tournaments as well. For this reason, and because he was burnt out somewhat after playing professionally for 11-12 years (he turned professional at age 14 in 1971- won Davis Cup debut match at age 15 in 1972 - and never lost a DC singles match again post 1973), and wanted to reduce his schedule.

However, Borg continued training and playing in 1982 (non ITF/ATP events), and if anything, his game was actually getting better in some ways at 26. He became stronger and he was serving harder than he ever had before. He won four big money (non ITF/ATP) events in 1982. If you are still convinced that Borg could no longer handle McEnroe after the US Open in September in 1981, look at what happened in November 1982 in the Sydney Akai Gold Challenge Round Robin, on carpet, no less. And don't forget that the Akai tournament prize money fund at that time was bigger than the slams. Borg defeated the #1 ranked McEnroe, 3-6, 6-4, 7-5, 6-2. He also dismantled Ivan Lendl, who would become the #1 ranked player a few months later, 6-1, 6-4, 6-2, along with Vitas Gerulaitis 7-6 6-3 6-2. For that effort, Borg pocketed $150,000 plus a $30,000 gold racquet. The 1982 US Open winner's prize was $90,000.

After that, there wasn't a whole lot of motivation for him to play longer except in some exhibitions. Don't count his appearance in his backyard at Monte-Carlo where he played for fun. He had done almost everything of which he had thought himself capable, except for not winning a US Open, where it just didn't happen for him, despite making 4 finals. But he no longer had the relentless drive to keep him playing and also defy the tour organizers.

At the time, pro tennis was not as "professional", or organized as today. There was no single ATP tour, there was a lot of infighting between the various organizations trying to control the players, and this led to bans by tournaments and boycotts by the players. What do I mean by relentless drive in Borg's case? Simply, it didn't mean as much to him to lose anymore. Not to mention he was fed up with the whole s**t, everyone that wanted a piece of him, the organizations, media, and as a global superstar, being pestered by everyone all over the world with only his coach as a buffer, which often wasn't enough.

Borg said he used to absolutely hate to lose, but that after he lost Wimbledon in 1981, he wasn't upset and he was shocked that he wasn't upset. And at that point, he knew that "something" special in him had gone. He was almost relieved to lose. Call it what you will, spark, passion, desire, fight; without it, you are not the same. Sometimes an absence from the game for a time, as long as the absence is not overly long, helps some to rekindle the flame, but other times not. Borg essentially left the game near the top.

As Arthur Ashe once said, "he might have won the US Open, or even a Grand Slam, but by the time he left, the historical challenge didn't mean anything. He was bigger than the game, like Elvis or Elizabeth Taylor or somebody".

Here are some clips, albeit poor quality, of the Borg-McEnroe match in Sydney in Nov 1982.

[video=youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jFXnTGqbwsU[/video]

[video=youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=918rp7Omjk0[/video]

[video=youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kger-33YtiY[/video]

My apologies if I've rambled on a bit...

Respectfully,
masterclass

masterclass provides a masterclass.

yes borg couldnt switch off from tennis, all that tennis since his mid teens, never mind all those unofficial tourneys /exhibitions he played helped push him out..

but the ITF were witless gimps..and BORG WAS GONE.

I just wish commentators and the press reported the true skinny, instead of the folklore that McEnroe had run him out of tennis after losing Wimbledon & USO finals of '81! Back then, I'm not sure if Tennis or World Tennis magazines did him justice! I used to collect them, but mags are heavy; dumped back in the 90's! Funny that with sites out there, I could have sold them as collectors items along with 60's baseball cards! :cry :huh: :s

 

[Kieran]

I think there are many myths about Borg, and the way he departed. Choose your myth, and move on...

 

[GameSetAndMath]

I think by end of AO, Murray will be booted out of Top 4. The top 4 will most probably
be RN, ND, DF and JMDP. This is because JMDP has only 90 to defend in AO. On the other
hand Murray has 1200 points to defend and does not seem to be fit enough to do well there.

However, DF has 1200 points to defend in FO. I don't think he will reach FO final
again. There is very less points separating Murray and DF right now. Also, Murray
has not even played in FO in 2013. Hence, I think Murray will reenter Top 4 by end
of FO.

So, I think going into Wimbledon, the top 4 will be RN, ND, JMDP and AM. The
net effect will be that Fed will not have to worry much about the draw in Wimbledon.
Any one of these four would be a tough QF opponent for Fed.

Continuing this line of thinking, I think Murray will once again
get booted out of top 4 after Wimbledon. He will most probably will fail in defending his
Wimbledon title and Fed has almost nothing to defend there and is bound to do well
there.

After Wimbledon 2014, the top 4 would be ND, RN, JMDP and RF.

Finally, I think the top 4 will be stabilized from that point till the end of the
year. I mean nobody will be leaving top 4 and will be entering top 4. But, there
can be movement within the top 4.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Continuing this line of thinking, I think Murray will once again
get booted out of top 4 after Wimbledon. He will most probably will fail in defending his
Wimbledon title and Fed has almost nothing to defend there and is bound to do well
there.

After Wimbledon 2014, the top 4 would be ND, RN, JMDP and RF.

Finally, I think the top 4 will be stabilized from that point till the end of the
year. I mean nobody will be leaving top 4 and will be entering top 4. But, there
can be movement within the top 4.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Poor verdasco, just went down in ranking at an inopportune time. He won't be
seeded at AO now.

Remember his SF against RN in AO.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

The new ranking for Jan 6th is out. This will be the one used for seeding purposes in AO.
The results of Sydney and Auckland will not affect the seedings.

1 Nadal, Rafael (ESP) 13,130 0 21
2 Djokovic, Novak (SRB) 12,260 0 18
3 Ferrer, David (ESP) 5,800 0 24
4 Murray, Andy (GBR) 5,560 0 19
5 Del Potro, Juan Martin (ARG) 5,255 0 21
6 Federer, Roger (SUI) 4,355 0 20
7 Berdych, Tomas (CZE) 4,180 0 24
8 Wawrinka, Stanislas (SUI) 3,890 0 25
9 Gasquet, Richard (FRA) 3,140 0 25
10 Tsonga, Jo-Wilfried (FRA) 3,065 0 21
11 Raonic, Milos (CAN) 2,860 0 23
12 Haas, Tommy (GER) 2,435 0 26
13 Almagro, Nicolas (ESP) 2,290 0 23
14 Isner, John (USA) 2,150 0 26
15 Youzhny, Mikhail (RUS) 2,145 0 26
16 Fognini, Fabio (ITA) 1,930 0 29
17 Nishikori, Kei (JPN) 1,915 0 21
18 Robredo, Tommy (ESP) 1,810 0 23
19 Simon, Gilles (FRA) 1,790 0 25
20 Anderson, Kevin (RSA) 1,685 0 23
21 Janowicz, Jerzy (POL) 1,615 0 21
22 Kohlschreiber, Philipp (GER) 1,525 0 27
23 Dimitrov, Grigor (BUL) 1,460 0 24
24 Gulbis, Ernests (LAT) 1,418 0 24
25 Seppi, Andreas (ITA) 1,360 0 29
26 Monfils, Gael (FRA) 1,335 5 24
27 Lopez, Feliciano (ESP) 1,310 1 22
28 Paire, Benoit (FRA) 1,300 -2 32
29 Melzer, Jurgen (AUT) 1,290 -2 26
30 Pospisil, Vasek (CAN) 1,289 2 27
31 Chardy, Jeremy (FRA) 1,255 3 25
32 Tursunov, Dmitry (RUS) 1,244 -3 23

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Poor verdasco, just went down in ranking at an inopportune time. He won't be
seeded at AO now.

Remember his SF against RN in AO.

GSM, don't worry. Jurgen Melzer dropped out of AO. Hence, Verdasco will be
seeded.

 

[herios]

New career highs recorded by the following players this week:

30 Vasek Pospisil 23y
40 Edoudard Roger-Vasselin 30y
54 Federico DelBonis 23y
61 Pablo Carreno-Busta 22y
74 Alejandro Gonzalez 24y
92 Aleksandr Nedovyesov 26y
95 Bradley Klahn 23y

Happy with Vasek for breaking another milestone, he did the best he could in Chennai, injury or not. Hats off to Roger-Vasselin to get better at such an age, he picks up this season where he left the previous on a high.
Gonzalez is progressing playing exclusively challengers and Nedovyesov it looks to have changed countries during the break. He was listed as Ukrainian where he was born, but new residence is Kazakhstan. Is this country paying the guys to represent them in DC? Because neither Golubev nor Kukushkin are born there...

 

[Front242]

There was a lot of talk of this a few years ago where Russian players got better compensation by claiming they were from Kazakhstan. Strange but true. Article about it below.

http://www.worldtennismagazine.com/archives/1675

 

[Moxie]

New career highs recorded by the following players this week:

30 Vasek Pospisil 23y
40 Edoudard Roger-Vasselin 30y
54 Federico DelBonis 23y
61 Pablo Carreno-Busta 22y
74 Alejandro Gonzalez 24y
92 Aleksandr Nedovyesov 26y
95 Bradley Klahn 23y

Happy with Vasek for breaking another milestone, he did the best he could in Chennai, injury or not. Hats off to Roger-Vasselin to get better at such an age, he picks up this season where he left the previous on a high.
Gonzalez is progressing playing exclusively challengers and Nedovyesov it looks to have changed countries during the break. He was listed as Ukrainian where he was born, but new residence is Kazakhstan. Is this country paying the guys to represent them in DC? Because neither Golubev nor Kukushkin are born there...

Good to see so many young players in that list of "career highs."

 

[JesuslookslikeBorg]

latest world rank charts are up early this week on atp site (13.1.2014), thanks to a Saturday finish to the 250warm up events..

the big news is ferrer/murray/del potro are separated by only 225pts in the rank list going into the aust open.

 

[herios]

latest world rank charts are up early this week on atp site (13.1.2014), thanks to a Saturday finish to the 250warm up events..

the big news is ferrer/murray/del potro are separated by only 225pts in the rank list going into the aust open.

And you know what this means:
JMDP is in control of his destiny to become after the AO for the first time ranked #3. He will just have to reach the QF and he will gain 270 points which will push him over both Ferrer and Murray.
If he reaches that round, Ferrer and Murray will need also to gain points to stay ahead of him, which could happen only if David reaches the finals or Andy will win it all..
So the stage is set to have a big change in the top 4, one I have been waiting for ever since, well 2010.

 

[Denis]

Sounds about right herios, your man will get the no 3 spot. It must happen here though, since Dp has 500 points from Rotterdam and 600 points from iw to defend afterwards.

 

[JesuslookslikeBorg]

latest world rank charts are up early this week on atp site (13.1.2014), thanks to a Saturday finish to the 250warm up events..

the big news is ferrer/murray/del potro are separated by only 225pts in the rank list going into the aust open.

And you know what this means:
JMDP is in control of his destiny to become after the AO for the first time ranked #3. He will just have to reach the QF and he will gain 270 points which will push him over both Ferrer and Murray.
If he reaches that round, Ferrer and Murray will need also to gain points to stay ahead of him, which could happen only if David reaches the finals or Andy will win it all..
So the stage is set to have a big change in the top 4, one I have been waiting for ever since, well 2010.

del potro at no3 it is going to happen...so mote it be.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

I think by end of AO, Murray will be booted out of Top 4. The top 4 will most probably
be RN, ND, DF and JMDP. This is because JMDP has only 90 to defend in AO. On the other
hand Murray has 1200 points to defend and does not seem to be fit enough to do well there.

However, DF has 1200 points to defend in FO. I don't think he will reach FO final
again. There is very less points separating Murray and DF right now. Also, Murray
has not even played in FO in 2013. Hence, I think Murray will reenter Top 4 by end
of FO.

So, I think going into Wimbledon, the top 4 will be RN, ND, JMDP and AM. The
net effect will be that Fed will not have to worry much about the draw in Wimbledon.
Any one of these four would be a tough QF opponent for Fed.

Continuing this line of thinking, I think Murray will once again
get booted out of top 4 after Wimbledon. He will most probably will fail in defending his
Wimbledon title and Fed has almost nothing to defend there and is bound to do well
there.

After Wimbledon 2014, the top 4 would be ND, RN, JMDP and RF.

Finally, I think the top 4 will be stabilized from that point till the end of the
year. I mean nobody will be leaving top 4 and will be entering top 4. But, there
can be movement within the top 4.

As predicted earlier, Murray is now officially kicked out of top 4.

 

[El Dude]

2014 Rankings - observations and speculations

There hasn't been a thread on this yet, so I thought I'd get discussion going on rankings. While its obviously early, there are some clear indicators going forward. A few things:

One, Rafa's gained big time at the AO. Right now he's 3,000+ points over Novak and if he goes all the way, will be 4,500ish ahead. While Rafa has a lot of points to defend, Novak has quite a a bit too, so unless Rafa gets injured he's going to be the player to beat in the rankings.

Assuming Andy recovers fully and Roger's resurgence is sustainable, we might be seeing those four in the top 4 rankings again. Unless he can get by Rafa, Roger will end the AO at #8, but then he's got a lot of points ahead of him throughout the year, so #8 is likely as low as he'll go.

Who knows how the next group - Del Potro, Ferrer, Berdych, Tsonga, and now Wawrinka - will arrange themselves. It will be a shuffle all year long, but it looks like Stanislas is here to stay, at least for the time being.

After the top nine players, it will be interesting to see how it plays out in the #10-15 range. I think Grigor Dimitrov will be there soon--he'll finish the AO at #19, the first time in the top 20. I'm starting to question whether Jerzy Janowicz has what it takes to rise that high. I think he'll have spurts in that range, but be more of a Fernando Verdasco type rather than a perennial top 10 player like Tsonga and Berdych. Raonic might dip in and out of the top 10, but I don't see him as being a serious threat to surpass the nine above.

Its looking like Fabio Fognini is in the top 20 to stay, which is nice to see. Kei Nishikori probably isn't going anywhere, but I could see him being an Almagro-type: consistent enough to be in the mix, but not good enough to really challenge for a seat at the big table. I also expect to see Vasek Pospisil, Benoit Paire, and Ernests Gulbis join Fognini and Nishikori as mainstays in the top 20. Its nice to see old guys Haas, Youzhny, and Robredo in the top 20, but who knows how long they'll be able to hang. I'm also thinking that we start seeing Gasquet slowly fall away, and maybe hang out in the top 20 for a couple years, but I don't think he'll finish in the top 10 again. Who knows, though.

As for players coming onto the radar, I could see Federico Delbonis challenging for the top 20 this year, and maybe Pablo Carreno Busta and Robert Bautista Agut, although all three of these guys might be more like #20-40 types that peak into the top 20 on occasion, but are mainstays in that range - sort of like Mayer, Kohlschreiber, Seppi, etc.

For younger up-and-comers, I've got my eye on Jiri Vesely, currently #83, who I think could challenge for the top 50 this year. Dominic Thiem, Damir Dzumhur, Nick Kyrgios, etc are all on the radar, but they're all probably a year or so away from being on the top 50 radar. If they can get into the top 100 this year, that will be good enough.

Thoughts?