Year-End #1 vs. ATP ranked #1 at year's end

[Kieran]

You're right, Moxie, the YE#1 is the bloke who gained most points over the season, and players have always considered it an achievement to have this. The tennis season takes place in the calendar year, so to finish the year as #1 is more significant than being #1 for a week in February. It signifies that when all is accounted for, that player gained more points than the rest over that particular season.

Then they all go off to India - or to rest - and the show kicks off again the following year.

The Player of the Year isn't mythical, although there's no prize for it. But so far, aside from ranking points, Novak has been the player of the year, based on performances in big events. It could be that Federer ends the season as #1, but has a less good record in big events. This would be unusual, but he's 33, so there's a case to be made for the Deathless One to be player of the year, also.

Nobody makes a huge case for player of the year, because usually it's the YE#1. Unless we really want to haul the wimmin in here and shame them. I expect Novak will keen his eye for the rest of the season and aim to bag just enough points to finish the race at the top. It's possible, however, that Rafa could come back and batter everybody senseless, and take it, which would be welcome. But most likely is that he should ease his way back, and secure #2...

 

[NADAL2005RG]

^ Judging by what I saw in the Tsonga exhibition, Nadal is doing everything at full pace/power.
Not easing his way back at all.
Not surprising, considering he's been training hard since Wimbledon (just not with the backhand).
And Nadal is playing Doubles and Singles at China.

So its great that we get to see Djokovic, Nadal and Federer all at full fitness at this time of the year (whereas in 2011 Djokovic was not fit after the US Open, 2012 Nadal missed everything after Wimbledon, 2013 Federer reportedly had back problems).

 

[Federberg]

You know... this thread makes me think that the influence Sampras has had over mens tennis is greater than we often realise. Number of grand slams as a defining measure of a career is really his thing, and so is the yearend number 1. I don't recall Mac or Lendl caring two hoots about that! I can appreciate GSM's argument that YE1 has a greater value because of the free weeks it gives you, never really thought about that before, but if you think about it.. what you're really saying is that YE1 is a derivative as it bolsters your total number of weeks at number 1, which to my way of thinking is a far superior measure of a players stand in the history books anyway. But in and of itself there really is no great value to it in my opinion. I certainly don't ever look back at the history books and ask "who was the number 1 player in a particular year"... the only question I would ask is "who won the slams and the wtf that year?". So for me it's a Sampras/ American media construct..

I guess perhaps we all ask different questions...

It's a tough one anyway.. at a slight tangent... player A gets to the finals of all 4 majors, players B, C, D and E all win one major each but flame out at the others in the 4th round. Apart from that they equally share masters titles throughout the year... I'm guessing player A will be ranked 1 at the end of the year. I'm also betting that player A would rather have the year of anyone of B,C,D or E.

What that tells me is that player A is ranked number 1 because he has been consistently strong throughout the year. The number 1 ranking doesn't necessarily tell you who has had the best highlights in the year.. it's a measure of consistency and strength. If we're happy with the relative rankings of slams, wtf, masters etc.. and Roger gets number 1.. then we shouldn't have anyone moaning. They just need to understand what YE1 means.. and what it doesn't convey!

 

[Federberg]

^ Judging by what I saw in the Tsonga exhibition, Nadal is doing everything at full pace/power.
Not easing his way back at all.
Not surprising, considering he's been training hard since Wimbledon (just not with the backhand).
And Nadal is playing Doubles and Singles at China.
He's clearly 100% healthy and he's using every bit of it.
So its great that we get to see Djokovic, Nadal and Federer all at full fitness at this time of the year (whereas in 2011 Djokovic was not fit after the US Open, 2012 Nadal missed everything after Wimbledon, 2013 Federer reportedly had back problems).

Is this the right thread for this? In any case.. an exhibition is just that... an exhibition. We need to see Rafa playing in a truly competitive environment to be able to assess his form properly

 

[NADAL2005RG]

^ Are you kidding?
Did you see how hard Nadal and Tsonga were playing?
It was a higher quality than the Toronto final.

 

[Moxie]

You're right, Moxie, the YE#1 is the bloke who gained most points over the season, and players have always considered it an achievement to have this. The tennis season takes place in the calendar year, so to finish the year as #1 is more significant than being #1 for a week in February. It signifies that when all is accounted for, that player gained more points than the rest over that particular season.

Then they all go off to India - or to rest - and the show kicks off again the following year.

The Player of the Year isn't mythical, although there's no prize for it. But so far, aside from ranking points, Novak has been the player of the year, based on performances in big events. It could be that Federer ends the season as #1, but has a less good record in big events. This would be unusual, but he's 33, so there's a case to be made for the Deathless One to be player of the year, also.

Nobody makes a huge case for player of the year, because usually it's the YE#1. Unless we really want to haul the wimmin in here and shame them. I expect Novak will keen his eye for the rest of the season and aim to bag just enough points to finish the race at the top. It's possible, however, that Rafa could come back and batter everybody senseless, and take it, which would be welcome. But most likely is that he should ease his way back, and secure #2...

I'm not clear that I am right. I was trying to understand if there was a different calculation for the points for the calendar year, but I don't see any evidence of, other than the "race to London." If it's really just who finishes with the most ATP rankings points by Dec. 31, that seems rather an artificial construct, then, given the 52-week rolling cycle.

Look at the year 2000: Agassi had been #1 for 12 months by Sept of that year. Sampras regained it for 2 months, then Safin had it for 2 weeks, and Gustavo Kuertan gained #1 on Dec. 4, then held it for 8 weeks, which included the off-season, so he's listed as YE#1 for 2000. Someone tell me that's not an artificial stopping point. (Each of those 4 won a Major that year, btw.)

 

[Kieran]

The calendar year isn't an artificial construct - the Gregorian calendar is precise and real to about one day per 3000 years! :snigger

Think of it this way: in a long distance race, the winner need only lead at the very end. We measure the tennis season by the calendar. We snugly fit in all the events once and we tot up things at the season's end. If Kuerten snuck in at the death and became the YE#1 in 2000, it's because in the measure of that season, he was the most successful player, points-wise. Regardless of when this became significant, it's considered something by the players and it's mentioned by the fans and the media. It's a very rare season that this ranking doesn't reflect who's best that year, also. Usually the man who succeeds best in the majors will finish the season as the Top Man. So when we mark that year, we can ask many things - such as who won what - and also, who finished as the #1 player...

 

[Moxie]

The calendar year isn't an artificial construct - the Gregorian calendar is precise and real to about one day per 3000 years! :snigger

Think of it this way: in a long distance race, the winner need only lead at the very end. We measure the tennis season by the calendar. We snugly fit in all the events once and we tot up things at the season's end. If Kuerten snuck in at the death and became the YE#1 in 2000, it's because in the measure of that season, he was the most successful player, points-wise. Regardless of when this became significant, it's considered something by the players and it's mentioned by the fans and the media. It's a very rare season that this ranking doesn't reflect who's best that year, also. Usually the man who succeeds best in the majors will finish the season as the Top Man. So when we mark that year, we can ask many things - such as who won what - and also, who finished as the #1 player...

Well, then how come that person gets a head start in the next race, then, as he carries his points along? If the start line doesn't start at the same place for everyone, then how can the (presumptive) "finish-line" be the same?

 

[Kieran]

The race starts from scratch in January, no players have any points, and you can follow both the race and rolling rankings on the ATP site rankings page. They have both of them there...

 

[Moxie]

The race starts from scratch in January, no players have any points, and you can follow both the race and rolling rankings on the ATP site rankings page. They have both of them there...

So that's my question, and GSM says they're not separate. I put up the different numbers above. Is the YE#1 calculation separate from the rolling rankings calculation, and can the YE#1 be different from the ATP #1 at year's end? (For heaven's sake, that's all I'm asking.)

 

[Federberg]

You're right, Moxie, the YE#1 is the bloke who gained most points over the season, and players have always considered it an achievement to have this. The tennis season takes place in the calendar year, so to finish the year as #1 is more significant than being #1 for a week in February. It signifies that when all is accounted for, that player gained more points than the rest over that particular season.

Then they all go off to India - or to rest - and the show kicks off again the following year.

The Player of the Year isn't mythical, although there's no prize for it. But so far, aside from ranking points, Novak has been the player of the year, based on performances in big events. It could be that Federer ends the season as #1, but has a less good record in big events. This would be unusual, but he's 33, so there's a case to be made for the Deathless One to be player of the year, also.

Nobody makes a huge case for player of the year, because usually it's the YE#1. Unless we really want to haul the wimmin in here and shame them. I expect Novak will keen his eye for the rest of the season and aim to bag just enough points to finish the race at the top. It's possible, however, that Rafa could come back and batter everybody senseless, and take it, which would be welcome. But most likely is that he should ease his way back, and secure #2...

I'm not clear that I am right. I was trying to understand if there was a different calculation for the points for the calendar year, but I don't see any evidence of, other than the "race to London." If it's really just who finishes with the most ATP rankings points by Dec. 31, that seems rather an artificial construct, then, given the 52-week rolling cycle.

Look at the year 2000: Agassi had been #1 for 12 months by Sept of that year. Sampras regained it for 2 months, then Safin had it for 2 weeks, and Gustavo Kuertan gained #1 on Dec. 4, then held it for 8 weeks, which included the off-season, so he's listed as YE#1 for 2000. Someone tell me that's not an artificial stopping point. (Each of those 4 won a Major that year, btw.)

I completely agree with you!

 

[Kieran]

They're different, yes, because the race measures from January and the rolling measures the previous twelve months.

And at years end, when all tourneys are ended, they're the same, since they both only measure the results that year...

 

[Moxie]

^Doh!

 

[Billie]

Moxie, I don't think they are explaining it to you clearly. If you are still unsure, let me know and I will explain it in a better way.

BTW: Nole just has to outperform Federer and Nadal each to make sure that he ends up #1 at the end of the year. He has to maintain the difference between him and Federer or Nadal that you see in race ranking (he can slip a bit, but not too much). I will be angry at him if he fails in that.

Basically what needs to happen is for Nole to really play badly till the end of the year and one of the other gentlemen to win almost everything. That is not impossible at all.

Also, GSM I don't think that you are correct in saying that ATP and ITF don't have Player of the year award. I am pretty sure that ITF awards this to the player they deem worthy of it (usually the one who performs best at their event: majors and DC). There are no points for it but I am sure that such award exists.

 

[NADAL2005RG]

Because Cilic and Nishikori are in such great form, I'm not even convinced Djokovic will make the Semis of the World Tour Finals. Its a real lottery. #1 is truly up for grabs.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Moxie, I don't think they are explaining it to you clearly. If you are still unsure, let me know and I will explain it in a better way.

BTW: Nole just has to outperform Federer and Nadal each to make sure that he ends up #1 at the end of the year. He has to maintain the difference between him and Federer or Nadal that you see in race ranking (he can slip a bit, but not too much). I will be angry at him if he fails in that.

Basically what needs to happen is for Nole to really play badly till the end of the year and one of the other gentlemen to win almost everything. That is not impossible at all.

Also, GSM I don't think that you are correct in saying that ATP and ITF don't have Player of the year award. I am pretty sure that ITF awards this to the player they deem worthy of it (usually the one who performs best at their event: majors and DC). There are no points for it but I am sure that such award exists.

Djokivc has a lead of 1130 over Fed (who is in 2nd position) in the race. Assuming he
misses Bercy, that lead reduces to 130. So, he can remain #1 at YE as long as he can
outperform Fed in other events (Novak plays in Beijing, but not Basel and vice versa for
Fed).

Fed has just 375 points lead over Rafa and that will reduced to just 75 if Rafa
manages to reach finals in Beijing. So, Fed needs to outperform Rafa in all other
events to maintain #2 so that he can at least position himself well for AO.

As far as I know there is no "player of the year" award. There is no trophy given
for that, there is no money given for that, there are no points given for that. I even
doubt that they officially declare one person as the "player of the year". I think
"player of the year" is a fan construct (like goat) and so fans of any player can
argue that their guy is the "player of the year". But, I am ready to be disproved
on this by a suitable official link (not just a word).

 

[MargaretMcAleer]

Moxie, I don't think they are explaining it to you clearly. If you are still unsure, let me know and I will explain it in a better way.

BTW: Nole just has to outperform Federer and Nadal each to make sure that he ends up #1 at the end of the year. He has to maintain the difference between him and Federer or Nadal that you see in race ranking (he can slip a bit, but not too much). I will be angry at him if he fails in that.

Basically what needs to happen is for Nole to really play badly till the end of the year and one of the other gentlemen to win almost everything. That is not impossible at all.

Also, GSM I don't think that you are correct in saying that ATP and ITF don't have Player of the year award. I am pretty sure that ITF awards this to the player they deem worthy of it (usually the one who performs best at their event: majors and DC). There are no points for it but I am sure that such award exists.

I am certain that Novak received the award from the ITF in 2013,you are correct they do give out their award based on who performs best at their event: majors and DC.

 

[Moxie]

Moxie, I don't think they are explaining it to you clearly. If you are still unsure, let me know and I will explain it in a better way.

BTW: Nole just has to outperform Federer and Nadal each to make sure that he ends up #1 at the end of the year. He has to maintain the difference between him and Federer or Nadal that you see in race ranking (he can slip a bit, but not too much). I will be angry at him if he fails in that.

Basically what needs to happen is for Nole to really play badly till the end of the year and one of the other gentlemen to win almost everything. That is not impossible at all.

Also, GSM I don't think that you are correct in saying that ATP and ITF don't have Player of the year award. I am pretty sure that ITF awards this to the player they deem worthy of it (usually the one who performs best at their event: majors and DC). There are no points for it but I am sure that such award exists.

Thanks, Billie. It was Kieran who finally got it through my thick skull. I've never been able to see past the rolling rankings points. It has only taken several years, but now I finally get it. :blush: :snigger

I was looking at the 3 top guys and how they did this time last year. Nole is defending the most, of course, with 4 wins, Roger the least, and Rafa with finals and semis. However, there are question marks with all of them. Novak has family distractions and at some point will get called away for a bit. Rafa is still a wait-and-see, and while Roger seems the best positioned to make up points, I'd be shocked if he doesn't protect his Davis Cup chances, with a resulting less-than-heavy foot on the gas pedal, likely at the WTF. I can't believe that he and Stan worked so hard to get Switzerland into the finals not to want to get it done, and both are going to London. (Anyway, Stan almost certainly. While Tsonga has only an outside chance amongst the French players.) It could be a little wild and wooly this autumn.

 

[MargaretMcAleer]

Moxie, I don't think they are explaining it to you clearly. If you are still unsure, let me know and I will explain it in a better way.

BTW: Nole just has to outperform Federer and Nadal each to make sure that he ends up #1 at the end of the year. He has to maintain the difference between him and Federer or Nadal that you see in race ranking (he can slip a bit, but not too much). I will be angry at him if he fails in that.

Basically what needs to happen is for Nole to really play badly till the end of the year and one of the other gentlemen to win almost everything. That is not impossible at all.

Also, GSM I don't think that you are correct in saying that ATP and ITF don't have Player of the year award. I am pretty sure that ITF awards this to the player they deem worthy of it (usually the one who performs best at their event: majors and DC). There are no points for it but I am sure that such award exists.

I am certain that Novak received the award from the ITF in 2013,you are correct they do give out their award based on who performs best at their event: majors and DC.

Novak captured the mens ITF award for the 3rd straight year in 2013.Womens ITF award went to Serena in 2013,for the fourth time.I went to their website for confirmation.

 

[Billie]

Thanks fashionista!

GSM: you lazy bum, here it is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITF_World_Champions

Nole won it the last 3 years.