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

[mightyjeditribble]

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.

Moxie, I don't agree at all with GSM regarding Andy - who had to face Big 4 opponents in all of his major finals until last year's Wimbledon (compared to Fed, Nadal, Djokovic who all won their first GS title as favourites in the final, though both Nadal and Djokovic had to defeat Federer en route).

However, there is no question that Fed was injured at least year's Wimbledon, surely? That's not to be used as an excuse; we don't know whether Raonic might have won the match anyway, and Murray beat Fed at Wimbledon in the 2012 Olympics, so who is to say he wouldn't have done so again. Roger shut down his season after the Raonic match, and I don't see how you can say that he wasn't injured.

 

[mightyjeditribble]

GSM, you make many great posts, but I do find you are just a tad biased when it comes to players whose style you dislike, such as Murray or Nadal. Or you just like poking their fans ...

Murray is a great player. I don't see how anyone who looks at things objectively could say he didn't earn his big titles. If he didn't play in the era of Federer, Nadal and Djokovic, three of the greatest players ever, he would undoubtedly have considerably more. You can always try to pick at a player's accomplishments to tarnish them, but to me it leaves a sour taste, no matter whether it is done to Roger, Rafa, Andy, Stan or anyone else.

Having "Math" in the username, we ought to hold you to a higher standard of objectivity than that ...

 

[El Dude]

At the end of last year I did a Top 20 Players of the Open Era article. Andy was #16, just behind the Becker/Edberg/Newcombe/Wilander cluster, and at the head of the Vilas/Ashe/Nastase/Courier group. I pointed out that if you looked at Andy's record beyond Slam titles, he's closer to the Becker group. Consider that he's played in the same number of Slam finals, 11, as Edberg, Wilander, and McEnroe, and one more than Becker. t is just that he is 3-8 in Slam finals - because he so often faced one of the Holy Trinity.

Again, I think Andy occasionally gets slammed because of what that 3-8 represents: he just can't quite compete with those three. But again, we must remind ourselves that for ten years now he's been better than all but three players in the sport, and those three are among the very best in all of tennis history.

 

[Moxie]

Everyone is looking at Andy as if he's a weak #1, having had such a poor 2017, so far, to back up his YE#1. But in fairness, this shingles business seems to be a thing, even possibly contributing to his elbow issue. That's just bad luck, like Roger getting mono, Rafa having appendicitis, etc. But he has been incredibly stalwart and consistent in facing "The Holy Trinity", if you like, occasionally besting them in big moments. And he really hasn't gotten a lot of free passes. I know there's a bit of conversation about Andy v. Stan, as both have 3 Majors. I don't know if anyone really knows how to grade Stan, as his career is so odd, but I do not ever see him getting to #1, for example. Murray long ago pinned himself right at Fed/Nadal/Djoker, and hasn't let go, even including jumping over them to the top rank. There are a lot of ways and times he could have wilted more than he has. I think what he's accomplished, given the opposition, is admirable.

 

[El Dude]

Stan is a rather unique player and hard to gauge in terms of historical greatness. But one thing we can say for certain is that Andy has been far greater. In the end, we only have career accomplishments to look at, and the vast difference between the two is best illustrated by the difference in their title count: 45 for Andy, 16 for Stan. In other words, Andy has almost three times as many titles - and those aren't only minor titles. Compare:

Slams: 3 each
ATP World Tour Finals: Andy 1, Stan 0
Masters: Andy 14, Stan 1
Olympic Gold: Andy 2, Stan 0
ATP 500: Andy 9, Stan 3
ATP 250: Andy 16, Stan 8

Stan probably ranks in the #21-25 range, along with players like Gustavo Kuerten, Stan Smith, Lleyton Hewitt, etc.

Actualy, here's an interesting question: Who was greater, Stan or Andy Roddick? Stan has the 3 Slams, but Roddick had twice as many titles (32), including 5 Masters. Of course Roddick won a lot of "wussy" titles, with 21 ATP 250s, but he was more consistent - a top 10 player for nine years in a row, top 20 for eleven years, and of course a year-end #1. Stan has only been top 10 for four years (so far), top 20ish for nine years.

 

[mrzz]

You can say all you want but still...

Peak Wawrinka > Peak Murray

 

[El Dude]

The only way to justify that statement is to narrow the definition of "peak" down to just a few tournaments. So you're basically saying, Stan in his three or four best tournaments is better than Andy in his three or four best tournaments. Fine, but let's be clear that is good old Cali's logic for ranking David Nalbandian as the best player ever.

But what about the other hundreds of tournaments?

 

[Moxie]

I agree with you, Dude. Also, I think when you talk about players with 3 Majors each, the question of which has a higher "ceiling" (as another way of putting it) is rather a matter of opinion and style preference, as their games are very different.

 

[El Dude]

Here's a mid-season update. Rafa did what he needed to do during clay season to position himself to re-take #1, accruing 4500 points. He's now at 6915 in the race rankings and 7285 in the live rankings. Meanwhile, Andy Murray is at 1930 in the race rankings and 9890 in the live rankings.

So we compare the live rankings: Andy still has quite a bit more, 9890 - 7285 = 2605. But consider that Andy has 2500 points coming off for Queen's and Wimbledon, while Rafa has done. So their points without last year's grass season is 7390 (Andy) - 7285 (Rafa) = 105 point differential.

Summary: Rafa simply needs to outplay Andy by 106 points during grass season to overtake him after Wimbledon. If Rafa wins Wimbledon (2000), no matter what Andy does (e.g. win Queens and reach Wimbledon final...500 + 1200 = 1700 points), Rafa is #1 after Wimbledon.

Of course out-playing Andy during grass season is a tall order, but the point is that at Wimbledon the #1 ranking will be in Rafa's grasp. Even if he doesn't pass Andy then, he has a very good chance during the North American tour when he has only 270 points to defend vs. Andy's 960. And then in Asia he has only 100 points to defend vs. Andy's 1500, and in Paris/WTF he has none vs. Andy's 2500. All things tolled, between now and the WTF, Andy has 6390 points to defend, vs. 370 for Rafa.

Bottom line: Barring season-ending injury, Rafa will almost certainly be #1 at some point this as soon as after Wimbledon and probably before the WTF. Even if Andy plays really well, unless he repeats last year's second half AND Rafa collapses or is injured, Rafa will pass him - at least for a time.

 

[the AntiPusher]

Here's a mid-season update. Rafa did what he needed to do during clay season to position himself to re-take #1, accruing 4500 points. He's now at 6915 in the race rankings and 7285 in the live rankings. Meanwhile, Andy Murray is at 1930 in the race rankings and 9890 in the live rankings.

So we compare the live rankings: Andy still has quite a bit more, 9890 - 7285 = 2605. But consider that Andy has 2500 points coming off for Queen's and Wimbledon, while Rafa has done. So their points without last year's grass season is 7390 (Andy) - 7285 (Rafa) = 105 point differential.

Summary: Rafa simply needs to outplay Andy by 106 points during grass season to overtake him after Wimbledon. If Rafa wins Wimbledon (2000), no matter what Andy does (e.g. win Queens and reach Wimbledon final...500 + 1200 = 1700 points), Rafa is #1 after Wimbledon.

Of course out-playing Andy during grass season is a tall order, but the point is that at Wimbledon the #1 ranking will be in Rafa's grasp. Even if he doesn't pass Andy then, he has a very good chance during the North American tour when he has only 270 points to defend vs. Andy's 960. And then in Asia he has only 100 points to defend vs. Andy's 1500, and in Paris/WTF he has none vs. Andy's 2500. All things tolled, between now and the WTF, Andy has 6390 points to defend, vs. 370 for Rafa.

Bottom line: Barring season-ending injury, Rafa will almost certainly be #1 at some point this as soon as after Wimbledon and probably before the WTF. Even if Andy plays really well, unless he repeats last year's second half AND Rafa collapses or is injured, Rafa will pass him - at least for a time.

Only the numbers 16, 17, 18 and 19 is on Rafa's radar.. but I agree he will be number one if he has a deep run at Wimbledon and the US Open

 

[El Dude]

I have no idea what is on Rafa's radar, but I disagree with you that he doesn't care about getting back to #1. If that was the case, he wouldn't be playing a full schedule in the second half. Right now he's scheduled to play every Masters, plus Beijing and Basel. I think he wants #1, and I think he really wants the WTF. But yeah, Slams are first priority.

 

[Moxie]

I have no idea what is on Rafa's radar, but I disagree with you that he doesn't care about getting back to #1. If that was the case, he wouldn't be playing a full schedule in the second half. Right now he's scheduled to play every Masters, plus Beijing and Basel. I think he wants #1, and I think he really wants the WTF. But yeah, Slams are first priority.

Rafa is a competitor, and he'll be perfectly happy to be #1 again, if it happens, but I don't think it's a goal. That doesn't mean he doesn't "care about it." The same has been said of Roger. They want to win the big tournaments, and the rankings will take care of themselves.

 

[Denis]

I think it will be between Fed and Rafa this year YE no 1. We are halfway and Nadal has a whopping 5000 lead over Djokovic and Murray. That's massive, and Fed is at a 3000 (!) point disadvantage. In fact, it's fair to say that Nadal is guaranteed the YE no 1.

 

[isabelle]

I think it will be between Fed and Rafa this year YE no 1. We are halfway and Nadal has a whopping 5000 lead over Djokovic and Murray. That's massive, and Fed is at a 3000 (!) point disadvantage. In fact, it's fair to say that Nadal is guaranteed the YE no 1.

will Nadal play after Wimbly ? during several years, he stopped playing after grass season till the beginning of the following year, he hasn't played Bercy and Masters for ages...will he be able to play a whole 2017 season ??? that's the main question

 

[mrzz]

I think it will be between Fed and Rafa this year YE no 1. We are halfway and Nadal has a whopping 5000 lead over Djokovic and Murray. That's massive, and Fed is at a 3000 (!) point disadvantage. In fact, it's fair to say that Nadal is guaranteed the YE no 1.

I would not say guaranteed as Nadal, even when he plays (as noted by Isabelle above), usually does not scores too many points on the second half of the season (note to readers: please acknowledge the use of the word "usually"). Barring someone else getting a run and winning the two remaining majors, I guess it is between Nadal and Federer, if the latter at least reaches Wimbledon final.

But, surely, he has a hell of a lead and now is the heavy favorite for YE#1.

 

[the AntiPusher]

I have no idea what is on Rafa's radar, but I disagree with you that he doesn't care about getting back to #1. If that was the case, he wouldn't be playing a full schedule in the second half. Right now he's scheduled to play every Masters, plus Beijing and Basel. I think he wants #1, and I think he really wants the WTF. But yeah, Slams are first priority.

Rafa plays a full schedule because he is the type of player that needs to hit. A lot of balls and practice to get the feel of the ball. Unlike Roger or Novak who just requires only a light warm up.. Rafa's game requires him to be "lathered up" to be able to strike the ball the way he needs to be competitive.

 

[Denis]

Rafa plays a full schedule because he is the type of player that needs to hit. A lot of balls and practice to get the feel of the ball. Unlike Roger or Novak who just requires only a light warm up.. Rafa's game requires him to be "lathered up" to be able to strike the ball the way he needs to be competitive.

I expect him to rack up a decent amount of points in the rest of the season.

But the most defining thing in my view that will guarantee the No spot is that the rest will hurt each other badly in collecting points. I dont think Fed will take 8000 points for instance. It will be more like Fed, Murray Djokovic get around 3000 or 4000. Rafa would thus only need a 1000 or so over Fed. I seriously doubt he will have issues with getting a 1000 points considering the start of the season on HCs.

 

[britbox]

I think it will be between Fed and Rafa this year YE no 1. We are halfway and Nadal has a whopping 5000 lead over Djokovic and Murray. That's massive, and Fed is at a 3000 (!) point disadvantage. In fact, it's fair to say that Nadal is guaranteed the YE no 1.

Yep, I think Fed's limited schedule gets in the way of any realistic run at #1. It'll be interesting to see what his hard court schedule is, but even without knowing, he's probably missed too much already.

 

[El Dude]

For Roger to be YE1, a few things would have to happen:
1. He would need to play very well the second half - win at least one more Slam (and go deep in the other), and win at least one or more Masters/WTF, and
2. Rafa would have to slow down significantly, not win another Slam or more than one more big title, and
3. Andy, Novak, or anyone else couldn't sweep the second half.

Right now Rafa has a huge advantage and is the easy favorite to be YE1. Roger simply missed too many points during clay season. It is nearly impossible to be YE1 when you miss a Slam and three Masters.

 

[El Dude]

Andy's early loss in London really helps Rafa. Here are their points going into Wimbledon, with last year's Wimby taken off:
Andy: 7390
Rafa: 7285
Andy +105

Meaning, barring an early round defeat for both, whoever does better at Wimbledon is #1 after the tournament; tie goes to Andy. Or in other words:

Rafa will be #1 if...
1) He reaches at least the 4R and Andy goes out in the 1R or 2R, or
2) He reaches the QF or later, and Andy goes out one round earlier

Andy will be #1 if...
Andy equals or exceeds Rafa's result

(I'll cross post this to the Wimbledon Early Talk thread)