Who else will be #1 this year? (and when)

[Moxie]

Actually, I honestly thought that Rafa had the record, but was mistaking most weeks as #2, not top 2.

I thought Rafa at first, too, and I thought rafanoy was wrong about Djoker consecutive weeks at #2, but then I saw "Top 2," and got it. Interesting if slightly odd stat. As to the points when RG comes off, it's pretty shocking to see Novak's points compared to this time last year. And even Andy goes under 10,000.

 

[El Dude]

Yeah. By the end of RG last year, Novak had won two Slams and three Masters; not including possibly RG, so far he's only won an ATP 250 and reached only one other final. It is a pretty epic collapse.

 

[Moxie]

Yeah. By the end of RG last year, Novak had won two Slams and three Masters; not including possibly RG, so far he's only won an ATP 250 and reached only one other final. It is a pretty epic collapse.

This is why I don't see him defending RG. He's in regroup/rebuild mode, and he'll be adjusting to a relationship with Agassi. That after adjusting to dumping Becker, and adjusting to being without a coach, trainer, etc. Darth claims we may not see him back to form until around the USO. Next question is when is Murray going to start to perk up?

 

[rafanoy1992]

This is why I don't see him defending RG. He's in regroup/rebuild mode, and he'll be adjusting to a relationship with Agassi. That after adjusting to dumping Becker, and adjusting to being without a coach, trainer, etc. Darth claims we may not see him back to form until around the USO. Next question is when is Murray going to start to perk up?

I would say once he goes back to Queens London, England Moxie!

While there is a lot of pressure for Andy when he is playing in his home country, he actually finds an inner peace when he plays in Queens/Wimbledon.

 

[Moxie]

I would say once he goes back to Queens London, England Moxie!

While there is a lot of pressure for Andy when he is playing in his home country, he actually finds an inner peace when he plays in Queens/Wimbledon.

You may be right, and I hope so, but he hasn't been dealing with his #1 status that well, and, as you rightly point out, he gets a lot of pressure in Britain. As well as a lot of support. I'd like to see him getting his mojo back on the grass. I'm not feeling it for him at RG, which is likely not an outrageous prediction.

 

[mightyjeditribble]

I would say once he goes back to Queens London, England Moxie!

While there is a lot of pressure for Andy when he is playing in his home country, he actually finds an inner peace when he plays in Queens/Wimbledon.

I like Andy, and am more than happy for him to win Queens again this year ... of course, I'm hoping for a different outcome at Wimbledon.

 

[Busted]

Rafa says that to be #1 is not his goal but to be healthy and competitive

I'm not buying that. Especially with Roger skipping the clay season and Djokovic and Murray both playing crappy. Plus Murray has a TON of points to defend the rest of the year. Nadal would be a fool not to see the opening in front of him. Earlier in the year he was whining that he would have been world #1 for a lot longer if not for Federer and Djokovic. Never mind the fact that without Nadal and Djokovic (and Murray) Roger would probably be riding a streak of 690 or so straight weeks at #1. :lulz2: It's all relative, Nadal. Now he has a chance to add to his total and stop whining about why he doesn't have a higher total. Roger got back to #1 at 31 in 2012 - so it's not like it hasn't been done in recent times.

 

[Busted]

rafanoy1992, if you look at the numbers, he doesn't have to do great after clay season to be #1 - he has a good chance of it after Wimbledon. He could even be year-end #1 if he has a surge later in the year. He may surprise you.

Exactly. Nadal doesn't have that many points to defend after RG. Murray, on the other hand, has 6,160 points to defend from Wimbledon to the ATP Tour Finals. Nadal only has 380 points to defend. I said it months ago - no way Murray runs the tables and wins Queens, Wimbledon Beijing, Shanghai, Vienna, Paris and ATP Finals again this year. No way, no how. Not unless Djokovic is still playing badly and Roger doesn't maintain his early season form. Nadal doesn't have to win all of them - just 1 or 2 and make enough SF and finals.

 

[El Dude]

Right now I think Rafa has the best chance at YE#1, followed by Roger, then Novak, then Andy - at least of the Big Four. I wouldn't be surprised to see someone like Thiem or Zverev push one of them out of the top 4, or Stan if he wins a Slam.

But it is really up for grabs. Rafa has to win RG, and then do well at least during some of the later tournaments. Roger has to win either Wimbledon or the USO, and probably another Masters or two and/or the WTF. Novak and Andy have an even tougher task in that they would have to find their best level and pretty much dominate the second half.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

This is why I don't see him defending RG. He's in regroup/rebuild mode, and he'll be adjusting to a relationship with Agassi. That after adjusting to dumping Becker, and adjusting to being without a coach, trainer, etc. Darth claims we may not see him back to form until around the USO. Next question is when is Murray going to start to perk up?

Murray never really perks up. He eats the leftovers when others are gone. He got to #1 ranking when Roger, Rafa were out from the game and Nole was having extracurricular activities. Andy won his first Wimbledon when both Roger and Rafa exited very early and so on. Even his last year's Wimbledon win is somewhat tainted due to Roger's fall on grass. Almost every big win by Andy has an asterisk besides it.

 

[El Dude]

That isn't entirely fair, it just highlights that Andy isn't on the same level as the Bigger Three, and never has been. That's OK. He's what he's always been "The worst of the best, or best of the rest." No shame in that. The closest comparable player in history is Guillermo Vilas, who was never #1 (although probably should have been in 1977) - always third fiddle behind Connors and Borg, and then eventually Lendl and McEnroe as well.

But Andy has also earned his accomplishments. He hasn't only won when the Bigger Three have lost, but has on occasion beaten them to earn his title. Last year he didn't have to beat any of them to win Wimbledon, but he beat Novak in the final of both the 2013 Wimbledon and 2012 US Open. Not to mention his Masters titles or the 2016 ATP WTF.

 

[El Dude]

The bottom line being, people bash Andy when they compare him to Roger, Rafa, and Novak. But the thing is, except for a handle of players in tennis history, everyone looks bad when measured up against those three. At the least we can say that Andy is the best other player to peak alongside those three - better than anyone from Roger's generation, and anyone from his own or the next generation. As of this writing he is the fourth greatest (or at least most accomplished) player born from 1972 on...that isn't bad at all.

 

[Moxie]

Spirited defense of Andy, Dude. And interesting comparison with Vilas. Also, Andy beat Roger on grass to win his first Gold Medal.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Spirited defense of Andy, Dude. And interesting comparison with Vilas. Also, Andy beat Roger on grass to win his first Gold Medal.

After JMDP killed Federer, Andy did the last rites at Olympics'12.

 

[Moxie]

After JMDP killed Federer, Andy did the last rites at Olympics'12.

You can stop talking about irritating Nadalites if you're going to keep massaging over that one. I believe there was a lot of talk about Federer's age after that tough SF. Well, he was only 31 then. And Andy had to beat Djokovic in his semi. You can look down your nose at Murray if you want to, but El Dude made a good case for why he's not just some also-ran picking up scraps.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

You can stop talking about irritating Nadalites if you're going to keep massaging over that one. I believe there was a lot of talk about Federer's age after that tough SF. Well, he was only 31 then. And Andy had to beat Djokovic in his semi. You can look down your nose at Murray if you want to, but El Dude made a good case for why he's not just some also-ran picking up scraps.

No, it is not about age. He ha really grueling match against JMDP, that went to 19-17 in the third set, IIRC. Mind you this is not a tie breaker score; they did not have tie breakers in Olympics at the tie. It is the actual game score. That certainly played a huge role in the final, as Fed was mentally exhausted. He did beat up on Andy just a month ago at Wimbledon, nothing much has changed, how do you understand the result?
I am not trying to give excuse to Fed's loss. It is obviously his fault if he had to play that long in the semifinal. But, what I am trying to point out is that almost all of Andy's major wins had huge assists.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

That isn't entirely fair, it just highlights that Andy isn't on the same level as the Bigger Three, and never has been. That's OK. He's what he's always been "The worst of the best, or best of the rest." No shame in that. The closest comparable player in history is Guillermo Vilas, who was never #1 (although probably should have been in 1977) - always third fiddle behind Connors and Borg, and then eventually Lendl and McEnroe as well.

But Andy has also earned his accomplishments. He hasn't only won when the Bigger Three have lost, but has on occasion beaten them to earn his title. Last year he didn't have to beat any of them to win Wimbledon, but he beat Novak in the final of both the 2013 Wimbledon and 2012 US Open. Not to mention his Masters titles or the 2016 ATP WTF.

I never said anything about Andy not being the best of the rest or the worst of the best in terms of career accomplishments.
My point is this. Even if you take Stan (or even Cilic for that matter), they won their big titles in a way that clearly establishes themselves as
the champion of that tourney. Stan beat Novak fair and square at RG and also in USO. The AO win might have Rafa's injury as a factor.
Cilic basically took Fed out of play and then eliminated a hot Kei.

When Andy won his first Wimbledon, both Fed and Rafa went out early, Novak was softened by JMDP in the semi and moreover Novak went to Buddhist temple near Wimbledon just the day before final and meditated on compassion. In USO, weather played a role. In Andy's second Wimbledon, Fed was hurt and he got a newbie in the final. In Andy's second Olympics, same story of the opponent being softened by epic SF, just like in first Olympics.

 

[Moxie]

No, it is not about age. He ha really grueling match against JMDP, that went to 19-17 in the third set, IIRC. Mind you this is not a tie breaker score; they did not have tie breakers in Olympics at the tie. It is the actual game score. That certainly played a huge role in the final, as Fed was mentally exhausted. He did beat up on Andy just a month ago at Wimbledon, nothing much has changed, how do you understand the result?
I am not trying to give excuse to Fed's loss. It is obviously his fault if he had to play that long in the semifinal. But, what I am trying to point out is that almost all of Andy's major wins had huge assists.

I believe it was made to be about age at the time. The other SF-ists were 24-25 at the time. Roger was 31 or 32. The thinking then was that he couldn't do a huge 3-setter on Sat., and then win on Sunday. This came from Fed fans, too, and, let's face it, tries to put an asterisk on the Murray win, which is what you are doing. You're right to say it's his fault that he played (what still stands, I think,) the longest 3-setter in men's tennis. Murray had the tougher draw, on paper. Djokovic was #1. He beat Novak, then Roger on grass...I don't think that looks like an "assist." He also beat Novak in 2012 at the USO. What "assist" was there? And at the 2013 Wimbledon, if you're calling JMDP an "assist" there, again, I'd call foul. Murray has fought hard for his trophies and his ranking, besting his "betters" to get there. I don't think he's ever coasted to an important win.

 

[Moxie]

I never said anything about Andy not being the best of the rest or the worst of the best in terms of career accomplishments.
My point is this. Even if you take Stan (or even Cilic for that matter), they won their big titles in a way that clearly establishes themselves as
the champion of that tourney. Stan beat Novak fair and square at RG and also in USO. The AO win might have Rafa's injury as a factor.
Cilic basically took Fed out of play and then eliminated a hot Kei.

When Andy won his first Wimbledon, both Fed and Rafa went out early, Novak was softened by JMDP in the semi and moreover Novak went to Buddhist temple near Wimbledon just the day before final and meditated on compassion. In USO, weather played a role. In Andy's second Wimbledon, Fed was hurt and he got a newbie in the final. In Andy's second Olympics, same story of the opponent being softened by epic SF, just like in first Olympics.

I missed this reply, and I have to say: WTF?! Buddhist Temple? Now you're reaching for crazy. Djokovic had been an iron man not long before at the AO SF and Fs (2012.) Andy played that Wimby final in 2013 brilliantly, and there was little that Djokovic could have done. Give him the credit there. USO 2012: weather played a role? It actually helped get Novak INTO the F, so no crying for him over that. And even still: it's an outdoor tournament. If Murray played the elements better, he deserves it. In Andy's second Wimbledon Roger was hurt? I don't find confirmation for that, and, again, you can stop complaining about Nadal fans looking for excuses for losses due to injury, if you're going to do the same thing. Stan or Cilic, vs. Andy for credibility? You've already mentioned Rafa's injury at the AO 2014 final. So that falls in your category of "assisted" v. convincing wins. And some like Front have told us how hard Roger had to work v. Monfils in the SF at USO 2014 which withered him before the final. So isn't that similar to other moments you complained about Fed being weakened in the previous round? Bottom line: we can all find the odd caveats and "what ifs" for when our champion didn't win, but Murray has beaten some great competition to get his hardware. And, frankly, I think you're reaching to diminish his accomplishments.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

I missed this reply, and I have to say: WTF?! Buddhist Temple? Now you're reaching for crazy. .

I was not talking about World Tour Finals at all. :lulz2: