Tracking the Race to London - 2014 WTF

[tented]

It is sort of like a "Ferrer Plus" season.

Meanwhile, at Federer Fan Headquarters, news of the Ferrer comparison spread quickly ...

[video=youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XazOmi4yIbU[/video]

 

[Front242]

Of course the most notable difference between Federer and Ferrer (besides the obvious) and the reason their results shouldn't even be comparable is because Federer has played 19 tournaments so far this year while Ferrer has played 26!

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Rankings/Singles.aspx

 

[mrzz]

Actually there is a similarity between Ferrer and Federer this year. Federer's ranking is partially through being so damn consistent, making it deep in almost every tournament he's been in, even though he's "only" won four tournaments and none of them Slams. It is sort of like a "Ferrer Plus" season.

You could define a season with two or more master's 1000 wins as a "Ferrer Plus" season. If you don't grunt, a "Ferrer Plus Plus" one. If you are not Ferrer himself, a "Ferrer Plus Plus Ne Plus Ultra".

Seriously, it is a fact that if a given player would achieve #1 without winning a major, said player would be crucified, and in that regard people will surely cut Federer some slack they wouldn't for others... however, if that's is achieved by winning the YEC, it is "excused", at least for me.

Anyway, if the world #1 has not won a slam, I really do not know who should be more embarassed, the #1 or the GS winners....

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Actually there is a similarity between Ferrer and Federer this year. Federer's ranking is partially through being so damn consistent, making it deep in almost every tournament he's been in, even though he's "only" won four tournaments and none of them Slams. It is sort of like a "Ferrer Plus" season.

That is sacrilegious to put it mildly.

You got to seriously take into account how many tournaments people play. If you look
at Ferrer's ranking breakdown, you will see that he has so many tournaments in which he
participated and won points and they cannot be simply counted towards their rankings.

Even this week, Ferrer is playing in Vienna. Any points he gets there will simply
go down the drain, unless he wins the whole event, in which case the 250 points he
obtained will replace a 150 pointer from his current holdings.

Federer rarely if ever has "non-countable tournaments" in his breakdown for
quite a while now. Just this year, that too only so far, Ferrer has seven
non-countable tournaments. They are listed below.

24.02.2014 Acapulco Q 90 02.03.2015
06.01.2014 Auckland S 90 12.01.2015
07.07.2014 Bastad Q 45 13.07.2015
30.12.2013 Doha R16 20 05.01.2015
29.09.2014 Tokyo R32 0 05.10.2015
22.09.2014 Shenzhen R16 0 28.09.2015
21.04.2014 Barcelona R32 0 27.04.2015

If a player needs to play 10 ATP 250 tourneys so that he wins two and
the two 250s are counted and another player just plays two ATP 250s and wins
them, obviously the second player is clearly superior and wiser even though
exactly 500 points is counted for both of their rankings.

 

[El Dude]

Actually there is a similarity between Ferrer and Federer this year. Federer's ranking is partially through being so damn consistent, making it deep in almost every tournament he's been in, even though he's "only" won four tournaments and none of them Slams. It is sort of like a "Ferrer Plus" season.

You could define a season with two or more master's 1000 wins as a "Ferrer Plus" season. If you don't grunt, a "Ferrer Plus Plus" one. If you are not Ferrer himself, a "Ferrer Plus Plus Ne Plus Ultra".

Seriously, it is a fact that if a given player would achieve #1 without winning a major, said player would be crucified, and in that regard people will surely cut Federer some slack they wouldn't for others... however, if that's is achieved by winning the YEC, it is "excused", at least for me.

Anyway, if the world #1 has not won a slam, I really do not know who should be more embarassed, the #1 or the GS winners....

On the surface of things I agree with you, but if you look a bit deeper then there's an argument that can be made that if Federer actually gets the #1 he deserves it. Consider that in order to do so, one of two scenarios has to unfold:

1. Federer wins Basel, Paris, and the WTF, finishing with 7 titles (not including the Davis Cup, which is relatively inconsequential in the year-end rankings) - including the WTF and three Masters. Meanwhile, Novak does whatever he does, which wouldn't be enough to beat out Roger.
2. Federer wins Basel or Paris, and the WTF, finishing with 6 titles; meanwhile, Novak skips Paris to be with his wife and newborn, plays in but doesn't win the WTF.

Now in either case, Roger would have put together a resume that includes 6 or 7 titles, including 3 or 4 significant ones. And then you look at the rest of his results and he was in 1 GS Final, two GS SFs, and 3 Masters finals. All things tolled, that's an impressive year.

Now if someone else won two Slams it would be hard to swallow Federer getting the year-end #1 ranking. But considering that no one won two, if Roger really finishes that strongly and gets to #1, then I think he deserves it.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

In all the nitty gritty points analysis, the key point is not being appreciated by folks.
If Federer finishes YE #1 this year, he would have achieved YE #1 on two different years
that are spread apart by TEN full years. He was YE #1 at the end of 2004. If he achieves
this year, he will be YE #1 at the end of 2014.

Assuming he does it, this spread itself be a record. The previous record for
largest spread is 5 years and that is shared by Roger (2009-2004), Rafa (2013-2008)
and Pete (1998-1993).

.........and this may be a difficult record to break in the future as well.

 

[El Dude]

People are really taking the Ferrer-Federer comp too seriously. I was only saying that if you squint and don't look too closely, than Roger's Slam-less season has the vague inklings of Ferrer at his best.

But yeah, Ferrer players more tournaments, and in those tournaments he doesn't do as well as Federer has done. Roger's made it to the finals of 6 of the 11 big tournaments he's played in, while Ferrer's never made it to more than 3 of the big tournament finals in a given season, and then only once (2013).

But again, the point I was trying to make is that a lot of Roger's point total comes from non-wins.

 

[El Dude]

In all the nitty gritty points analysis, the key point is not being appreciated by folks.
If Federer finishes YE #1 this year, he would have achieved YE #1 on two different years
that are spread apart by TEN full years. He was YE #1 at the end of 2004. If he achieves
this year, he will be YE #1 at the end of 2014.

Assuming he does it, this spread itself be a record. The previous record for
largest spread is 5 years and that is shared by Roger (2009-2004), Rafa (2013-2008)
and Pete (1998-1993).

.........and this may be a difficult record to break in the future as well.

It would be a nice record, although technically you're talking about an 11-year spread, 2004-2014 (11 years including both seasons, with 9 between).

 

[mrzz]

^
Good analisys, but remenber I never said I think he wouldn't deserve it.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

In all the nitty gritty points analysis, the key point is not being appreciated by folks.
If Federer finishes YE #1 this year, he would have achieved YE #1 on two different years
that are spread apart by TEN full years. He was YE #1 at the end of 2004. If he achieves
this year, he will be YE #1 at the end of 2014.

Assuming he does it, this spread itself be a record. The previous record for
largest spread is 5 years and that is shared by Roger (2009-2004), Rafa (2013-2008)
and Pete (1998-1993).

.........and this may be a difficult record to break in the future as well.

It would be a nice record, although technically you're talking about an 11-year spread, 2004-2014 (11 years including both seasons, with 9 between).

You get YE #1 at the end of the year, not at the beginning of year. So, if you do get in
2014 and 2004, that is a 10 year spread.

 

[El Dude]

You get YE #1 at the end of the year, not at the beginning of year. So, if you do get in
2014 and 2004, that is a 10 year spread.

It is eleven years, GS&M.

1. 2004
2. 2005
3. 2006
4. 2007
5. 2008
6. 2009
7. 2010
8. 2011
9. 2012
10. 2013
11. 2014

 

[GameSetAndMath]

You get YE #1 at the end of the year, not at the beginning of year. So, if you do get in
2014 and 2004, that is a 10 year spread.

It is eleven years, GS&M.

1. 2004
2. 2005
3. 2006
4. 2007
5. 2008
6. 2009
7. 2010
8. 2011
9. 2012
10. 2013
11. 2014

:nono

The duration between December 2004 and December 2014 is exactly ten years.

For starters let us try this. If you achieve #1 in 2013 and then do it again in 2014
the second time, you won the second time exactly one year after you won the first
time and NOT two years after you won the first time. :snigger

 

[El Dude]

This is partially a matter of semantics. There are two ways to measure time from 2004 to 2014. If you count by a specific date then yes, it is a span of ten years. But when you're talking about the year-end rankings, it is the #1 ranking for the entire year, so the span is eleven years.

So, for instance, Roger's 2004 to 2009 #1 rankings is a span of six years, not five, because it includes six full seasons.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

I choose to let you have the last word.

 

[herios]

Finally, ATP has officially recognized that Stan Wawrinka has qualified for the WTF. Congrats ATP. snigger

You are making fun of the ATP, but it was only you who qualified Stan before he was, based on his points total.
ATP does not qualify any player until there is a mathematical chance to be passed by 8 players in the race ranking. That is such a complicated math algorithm that only a computer can do it.
Stan just became unreachable by at least 5 more players ranked behind him.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Finally, ATP has officially recognized that Stan Wawrinka has qualified for the WTF. Congrats ATP. snigger

You are making fun of the ATP, but it was only you who qualified Stan before he was, based on his points total.
ATP does not qualify any player until there is a mathematical chance to be passed by 8 players in the race ranking. That is such a complicated math algorithm that only a computer can do it.
Stan just became unreachable by at least 5 more players ranked behind him.

I agree that it is a completed calculation. However, live rankings page had him qualified
about four weeks ago. He has only lost in the first round of two tourneys since then.

I realize that ATP is more conservative in calling than live rankings page; but, still
a difference of four weeks seem too high here especially considering Stan himself
did not add much to his total during these times. Of course, I realize that it involves
others not catching up to him as well.

But, there should not be more than one week gap between projections by live
race rankings page and official ATP projections. Either live rankings is wrong or
ATP is slow. I can guarantee that much.

 

[mrzz]

Finally, ATP has officially recognized that Stan Wawrinka has qualified for the WTF. Congrats ATP. snigger

You are making fun of the ATP, but it was only you who qualified Stan before he was, based on his points total.
ATP does not qualify any player until there is a mathematical chance to be passed by 8 players in the race ranking. That is such a complicated math algorithm that only a computer can do it.
Stan just became unreachable by at least 5 more players ranked behind him.

I agree that it is a completed calculation. However, live rankings page had him qualified
about four weeks ago. He has only lost in the first round of two tourneys since then.

I realize that ATP is more conservative in calling than live rankings page; but, still
a difference of four weeks seem too high here especially considering Stan himself
did not add much to his total during these times. Of course, I realize that it involves
others not catching up to him as well.

But, there should not be more than one week gap between projections by live
race rankings page and official ATP projections. Either live rankings is wrong or
ATP is slow. I can guarantee that much.

Honestly, the algorithm is not THAT complicated. It probably uses brute-force and check all possibilities in a given envelope. By "envelope" I mean a set of possibilites which were not "a priori" discarded. Probably the discarding criterium differs on both sites, hence the difference. ATP probably have better machines (and needs to run the program only once a week), so they probably are able to cope with a larger set of possibilities.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Here are the odds for finishing as YE #1 as per the bookies.

Novak 1/8
Fed 9/2

So, they estimate Fed's chances to be rather small in comparison to Novak's, perhaps
correctly. But, this is influenced by the fact that 85% of the money that they received
on bets about this are placed on Novak and only 15% of the pool of money was
coming from wagers placed on Roger.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Here is an article from USA today that gives a plausible road map to Roger finishing YE #1.

 

[Johnsteinbeck]

Here are the odds for finishing as YE #1 as per the bookies.

Novak 1/8
Fed 9/2

So, they estimate Fed's chances to be rather small in comparison to Novak's, perhaps
correctly. But, this is influenced by the fact that 85% of the money that they received
on bets about this are placed on Novak and only 15% of the pool of money was
coming from wagers placed on Roger.

thanks for pointing that out - too often, people check the bookies and think it's based only on how 'the pros' estimate results.