World Tour Finals: Day 8 - Final - Sunday Nov. 16, Order of Play

[Kieran]

djokovic is playing like his 2011 self again. painting the lines and hitting with authority. can he keep this up

Ah, there's no way Novak is at his 2011 levels. He's not even at his 2012 and 2013 levels, for this time of year. And remember, at the last slam he got bundled out in the semis by Kei. That wouldn't have happened in 2011. In Shanghai, he got thumped by a 33 year old. Again, that's not happening in 2011 - or last year.

This year's WTF isn't a great judge of these guy's levels...

 

[brokenshoelace]

Thanks a lot Roger - three consecutive WTF wins for Novak with a big [*] next to it. :dodgy:

Only trolls will put an asterisk on it. Pure class comment on the court as Novak receives the trophy. If he gets the record for number of WTF trophies I won't begrudge him. What a player..

Sorry buddy but in this case there is an asterisk. He won the tournament without playing a final. That's a pretty big asterisk. Mind you, it was a final I fully expected him to win, but by very definition, there is an asterisk. I'm pretty sure if you look up the tournament results 10 years from now, they'll have an asterisk at the bottom of the page explaining that Federer withdrew. An asterisk isn't necessarily a negative thing that should be associated with "what ifs." Sometimes, it's just a fact. I don't know why we always have to be so politically correct. This isn't an opponent who retired mid-match. The final did not take place.

 

[nehmeth]

Thanks a lot Roger - three consecutive WTF wins for Novak with a big [*] next to it. :dodgy:

Only trolls will put an asterisk on it. Pure class comment on the court as Novak receives the trophy. If he gets the record for number of WTF trophies I won't begrudge him. What a player..

Sorry buddy but in this case there is an asterisk. He won the tournament without playing a final. That's a pretty big asterisk. Mind you, it was a final I fully expected him to win, but by very definition, there is an asterisk. I'm pretty sure if you look up the tournament results 10 years from now, they'll have an asterisk at the bottom of the page explaining that Federer withdrew. An asterisk isn't necessarily a negative thing that should be associated with "what ifs." Sometimes, it's just a fact. I don't know why we always have to be so politically correct. This isn't an opponent who retired mid-match. The final did not take place.

Well stated Broken. My post wasn't any concern about future trolling; he did not play the final *

 

[Kieran]

I can see one, buddy, but where's the other two?

 

[brokenshoelace]

Of course the REAL asterisk was that Rafa didn't play this tournament...

















Just kidding...I'll show myself out.

 

[DarthFed]

There is no asterisk next to this. Part of the reason Roger had to withdraw is that he had to go almost 3 hours with someone Nole beat in less than an hour a few days before. And Nole won his semi in a pretty harmless 3 sets. If his opponent wasn't fit to play the final that's not his fault, it just shows he was the last man standing at the end of the tournament in a more literal sense.

 

[DarthFed]

djokovic is playing like his 2011 self again. painting the lines and hitting with authority. can he keep this up

Ah, there's no way Novak is at his 2011 levels. He's not even at his 2012 and 2013 levels, for this time of year. And remember, at the last slam he got bundled out in the semis by Kei. That wouldn't have happened in 2011. In Shanghai, he got thumped by a 33 year old. Again, that's not happening in 2011 - or last year.

This year's WTF isn't a great judge of these guy's levels...

Nah, his 2014 is pretty much a mirror image of 2012 and 2013 except he ran into a red hot Roger on a fast surface that is basically indoors. He would've lost to the same Roger 2011, 2012, 2000-anything. But saying he is back to his 2011 self is way premature.

 

[the AntiPusher]

but I just can’t compete at this level with Novak. It would be too risky at my age to do this right now and I hope you understand.

Obviously Roger made the right decision..

 

[Federberg]

There is no asterisk next to this. Part of the reason Roger had to withdraw is that he had to go almost 3 hours with someone Nole beat in less than an hour a few days before. And Nole won his semi in a pretty harmless 3 sets. If his opponent wasn't fit to play the final that's not his fault, it just shows he was the last man standing at the end of the tournament in a more literal sense.

This

 

[brokenshoelace]

There is no asterisk next to this. Part of the reason Roger had to withdraw is that he had to go almost 3 hours with someone Nole beat in less than an hour a few days before. And Nole won his semi in a pretty harmless 3 sets. If his opponent wasn't fit to play the final that's not his fault, it just shows he was the last man standing at the end of the tournament in a more literal sense.

This

...is a narrow view. Again, an asterisk does not mean Novak wasn't the most deserving. I mean, I don't know how much simpler I can make it to you guys: When you look at the tournament results from this day till the rest of eternity, there literally will be an asterisk stating that Novak won the final on a walkover. That's quite literally, the very definition of an asterisk. He won a tournament without playing the final against the other guy who won as many matches as he is to reach the same stage.

 

[Kieran]

It's the very definition of what an asterisk was born to do. If we can't use an asterisk to signify that there's important info regarding this match on the bottom of the page, then WTF is an asterisk? A Gerard Depardieu flick?

Next thing we know, the tough guy anti-asterisk mob will insist that Nole beat Federer fair and square, don't ever let me hear of injuries being used as an excuse on that one... :nono

 

[DarthFed]

There is no asterisk next to this. Part of the reason Roger had to withdraw is that he had to go almost 3 hours with someone Nole beat in less than an hour a few days before. And Nole won his semi in a pretty harmless 3 sets. If his opponent wasn't fit to play the final that's not his fault, it just shows he was the last man standing at the end of the tournament in a more literal sense.

This

...is a narrow view. Again, an asterisk does not mean Novak wasn't the most deserving. I mean, I don't know how much simpler I can make it to you guys: When you look at the tournament results from this day till the rest of eternity, there literally will be an asterisk stating that Novak won the final on a walkover. That's quite literally, the very definition of an asterisk. He won a tournament without playing the final against the other guy who won as many matches as he is to reach the same stage.

Well direct me to the record books where this so called asterisk will be placed. I think in the end it will show Novak as the champion of the 2014 YEC without stating

*yeah but he was one lucky SOB for getting a walkover in the final

Now if we are talking about the final in and of itself then people will see that an actual match wasn't played and therefore has no effect on the H2H. But given what I mentioned earlier how would anyone argue that it cheapens Nole's win? Part of the game is getting through your opponents efficiently. Roger didn't on Saturday and it cost him. Nole was the deserving winner. Now matters would be different if Roger slipped on a tennis ball during the warmup and had to withdraw with a sprained ankle. That's when you start talking about asterisks...

 

[tented]

Only trolls will put an asterisk on it. Pure class comment on the court as Novak receives the trophy. If he gets the record for number of WTF trophies I won't begrudge him. What a player..

Sorry buddy but in this case there is an asterisk. He won the tournament without playing a final. That's a pretty big asterisk. Mind you, it was a final I fully expected him to win, but by very definition, there is an asterisk. I'm pretty sure if you look up the tournament results 10 years from now, they'll have an asterisk at the bottom of the page explaining that Federer withdrew. An asterisk isn't necessarily a negative thing that should be associated with "what ifs." Sometimes, it's just a fact. I don't know why we always have to be so politically correct. This isn't an opponent who retired mid-match. The final did not take place.

Well stated Broken. My post wasn't any concern about future trolling; he did not play the final *

I remember back on tennis.com getting Doogansquest to agree that an asterisk is appropriate if a final isn't played. Now, if he could agree, then ...

 

[Kieran]

Whatever happened to old Doogans? H never made it to here, did he? But he was at the old fort, tennis digital. I used to enjoy jousting with him. He was hardcore Wodger. Ah, them old days when Fedal wars were in every thread...

 

[tented]

They didn't go with an actual asterisk, but there's certainly an asterisk feel to it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_ATP_World_Tour_Finals_%E2%80%93_Singles


It seems right, though, since the match wasn't played: Novak won, with a walkover.

 

[brokenshoelace]

This

...is a narrow view. Again, an asterisk does not mean Novak wasn't the most deserving. I mean, I don't know how much simpler I can make it to you guys: When you look at the tournament results from this day till the rest of eternity, there literally will be an asterisk stating that Novak won the final on a walkover. That's quite literally, the very definition of an asterisk. He won a tournament without playing the final against the other guy who won as many matches as he is to reach the same stage.

Well direct me to the record books where this so called asterisk will be placed. I think in the end it will show Novak as the champion of the 2014 YEC without stating

*yeah but he was one lucky SOB for getting a walkover in the final

Now if we are talking about the final in and of itself then people will see that an actual match wasn't played and therefore has no effect on the H2H. But given what I mentioned earlier how would anyone argue that it cheapens Nole's win? Part of the game is getting through your opponents efficiently. Roger didn't on Saturday and it cost him. Nole was the deserving winner. Now matters would be different if Roger slipped on a tennis ball during the warmup and had to withdraw with a sprained ankle. That's when you start talking about asterisks...

An asterisk doesn't imply a player is lucky. I don't see the relevance of the argument. And while I wouldn't say it "cheapens" Novak's win, the fact that he couldn't win the title on court surely bothers HIM, or at least, takes away some of his joy, which is all that you need to know.

 

[brokenshoelace]

What's more valuable: Beating your opponent in the final or winning a tournament without playing the final due to a walkover?

Surely it's the first so by very definition, the second is less valuable and therefore, "cheaper." I mean, I'm honestly not being a smartass but how is this not obvious?

 

[nehmeth]

Of course the REAL asterisk was that Rafa didn't play this tournament...



Just kidding...I'll show myself out.

:snigger This made me smile.

 

[DarthFed]

What's more valuable: Beating your opponent in the final or not winning a tournament without playing the final due to a walkover?

Surely it's the first so by very definition, the second is less valuable and therefore, "cheaper." I mean, I'm honestly not being a smartass but how is this not obvious?

Oh there is no argument there. Everyone would rather win it on court so winning the event yesterday wasn't quite as sweet for Nole as beating Roger for it would've been. That said, to me an asterisk in sports is something that is solely restricted to cheating or some other huge event along those lines where you can argue a player really didn't earn the title. Again what happened at this tournament with Roger's withdrawal is way different than a situation where Roger had to withdraw due to a car accident or something non-tennis related. Roger had to withdraw due to a tennis-related injury that he aggravated during a very physically and mentally draining match. The way Nole was going it is doubtful he would have suffered through 3 hours of tennis vs. Wawrinka, seeing as how he trashed him in 1 hour the week before. If Roger rolled Stanley like he usually does there probably wouldn't have been a problem.

An asterisk next to a result/record is a "yeah but" which is meant to take away heavily from someone's achievement. Like in baseball where there should absolutely be an asterisk next to Bonds' homerun records, or a sport where it is found out after the fact that a champion was using PED's etc. I don't think this falls under that category.

 

[Federberg]

I completely agree DF. Nole won the tournament. End of story. Anyone adding an asterisk is trying to make the win less than it is


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk