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

[NADAL2005RG]

Perhaps next time you'll be better served by saying "I" instead of "we":blush:

That's true it is nice to take full credit.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Here is the complete list of annual awards given by the ATP.
Two are voted by fans (fans favorite singles player and doubles team) , three are determined by rankings (YE #1 singles player, doubles team and future star award given to youngest player in top 100) , four are voted by players (most improved player, comeback player, sportsmanship award and best tournament award) and two are decided by ATP (best journalist and humanitarian award).

Important Point: There is no such thing called "Player of the Year" award given by ATP.

 

[Johnsteinbeck]

^ ITF does, though (called "World Champion"). and in the unlikely event of Fed getting to #1 AND taking DC, or taking DC, WTF and missing the #1 by just a couple of points, this could well be the trickiest decision in years (even though the Slams are specifically named as forming the "decisive factor" there - clearly giving an edge to Novak).

(have fun, guys and gals )

 

[shawnbm]

There is no competition in this. Novak beat Roger at Wimbledon and has a slam--they are otherwise even in the slams, reaching the semis in the other three (or did Roger leave earlier in Paris???). I don't care if Roger skids ahead in points, the number one for history's sake, albeit by a slim margin, should be Novak.

 

[Federberg]

^Well.. the player of the year should be Novak's. But if Roger beats him in the rankings it is what it is. We all know which accolade both would prefer

 

[Kieran]

^Well.. the player of the year should be Novak's. But if Roger beats him in the rankings it is what it is. We all know which accolade both would prefer

Yes. To have won a major...

 

[DarthFed]

Yeah there's no debate who had the better season and it goes back to what I said about how the importance of majors goes way beyond the points. Roger regardless of what he does until the end of the year had the 5th best year (yes he would trade years with Cilic in a heartbeat).

And it goes back to why I said Roger has still had a poor year in 2014 even though he has mostly been very consistent and has often played great. Yes it seems weird to say he had a bad year (results wise) but has mostly played very well.. the majors are the "NFL, NBA, MLB playoffs/ Soccer's Davis Cup" and Roger came up just short. He almost had a tremendous year (1 set away). But if he does get Year End #1 I will change my tune about him not having a good year because it would be incredible even though he rightfully would not be player of the year.

 

[Kieran]

I don't think Novak can be pleased about his year, apart from Wimbledon, obviously. He went out early in Oz after being a break up in the fifth against Stan, he laid a good marker on Rafa in Rome, while Rafa was having his worst clay season in ten years, and he was outlasted by Nishi at the USO, despite Nishi having played longer matches before this.

The righteous anger he displayed after Oz in winning the opening two MS titles hasn't translated into absolute dominance, and allowing domestic bliss to douse his flame - while understandable - doesn't bode too well for him next year...

 

[DarthFed]

I don't think Nole could be happy for any year he has had since 2011 yet this is probably his best since then if he finishes #1. Winning another AO title means he will have the record for most titles there yet I think winning Wimbledon this year was probably his biggest slam win since winning the same tournament in 2011. Nole had to stop the bleeding at Wimbledon and he did it in awesome fashion. The tournaments after that, mainly the USO. was a disaster though and kept it from being a great year for him. And if Roger overtakes him for year end #1 then it might not be considered a decent year.

 

[El Dude]

Yeah there's no debate who had the better season and it goes back to what I said about how the importance of majors goes way beyond the points. Roger regardless of what he does until the end of the year had the 5th best year (yes he would trade years with Cilic in a heartbeat).

And it goes back to why I said Roger has still had a poor year in 2014 even though he has mostly been very consistent and has often played great. Yes it seems weird to say he had a bad year (results wise) but has mostly played very well.. the majors are the "NFL, NBA, MLB playoffs/ Soccer's Davis Cup" and Roger came up just short. He almost had a tremendous year (1 set away).

Sorry DarthFed, but this is rubbish. A poor year? Only, perhaps, in comparison to 2004-09 and maybe '12. Compared to 2013, and to what should be expected from any 33-year old, Roger has had a great year. To be honest, I think the problem is that A) your expectations are way too high, and B) you're in a "Slam win or die" mentality.

I also disagree that he's had the fifth best year. Would Roger trade his four titles for one Slam? On one hand I'd think, "Of course!" But on the other, there's a lot that goes with those four titles - it speaks of a player who has done consistently well throughout the year. In other words, you can't just trade titles, you have to trade all that goes with it. And if Roger had Cilic's year I would think, "Whoa, this guy is completely falling apart despite that flash of brilliance at the US Open."

In other words, I'd rather take Roger's Slam-less 2014, which points to continued success for another year or more, than Cilic's 2014, which for Roger would be pointing at imminent collapse.

Anyhow, I think there's truth in your analogy of the playoffs in other sports. I also view the Slams as the playoffs, with the other tournaments being akin to the regular season. In that regard, Roger would be the team with possibly the best regular season record in baseball, but who lost in the playoffs - sort of like the Angels in baseball this year. Actually, it is worth noting that three of the four teams with the best record in baseball have all been eliminated from the playoffs, so you just never know. In baseball, the playoffs are considered a bit of a crap-shoot, and I think in tennis it is similar. Roger could have won Wimbledon - he wasn't far off. I'm only saying that we should recognize this and not only wins. There's a reason the ATP awards 1200 points for being the runner up at a Slam - it is very, very hard to get there.

 

[El Dude]

One other thing to consider about Roger is that his 2014 winning percentage, 86%, is the same as 2012 and better than any year other than 2004-07. In other words, it is tied for his fifth best year of seventeen on tour! Now clearly winning percentage, like any statistic, shouldn't be taken as absolute or in a vacuum from other factors. But what it does tell us is that he's played well day in, day out.

 

[Kieran]

I don't think Nole could be happy for any year he has had since 2011...

I think we have to accept that 2011 was an anomaly, and not the real Novak. He's conformed more or less to type since then...

 

[the AntiPusher]

The Cowboys atop of the football ranking, Fed is ahead of Rafa .. well Mama said it would be days like this..

 

[DarthFed]

^ Will finish that way for the 7th time in 10 years (9th in 12th if we go back to 2003 and 2004 before Rafa rose up).

 

[DarthFed]

Yeah there's no debate who had the better season and it goes back to what I said about how the importance of majors goes way beyond the points. Roger regardless of what he does until the end of the year had the 5th best year (yes he would trade years with Cilic in a heartbeat).

And it goes back to why I said Roger has still had a poor year in 2014 even though he has mostly been very consistent and has often played great. Yes it seems weird to say he had a bad year (results wise) but has mostly played very well.. the majors are the "NFL, NBA, MLB playoffs/ Soccer's Davis Cup" and Roger came up just short. He almost had a tremendous year (1 set away).

Sorry DarthFed, but this is rubbish. A poor year? Only, perhaps, in comparison to 2004-09 and maybe '12. Compared to 2013, and to what should be expected from any 33-year old, Roger has had a great year. To be honest, I think the problem is that A) your expectations are way too high, and B) you're in a "Slam win or die" mentality.

I also disagree that he's had the fifth best year. Would Roger trade his four titles for one Slam? On one hand I'd think, "Of course!" But on the other, there's a lot that goes with those four titles - it speaks of a player who has done consistently well throughout the year. In other words, you can't just trade titles, you have to trade all that goes with it. And if Roger had Cilic's year I would think, "Whoa, this guy is completely falling apart despite that flash of brilliance at the US Open."

In other words, I'd rather take Roger's Slam-less 2014, which points to continued success for another year or more, than Cilic's 2014, which for Roger would be pointing at imminent collapse.

Anyhow, I think there's truth in your analogy of the playoffs in other sports. I also view the Slams as the playoffs, with the other tournaments being akin to the regular season. In that regard, Roger would be the team with possibly the best regular season record in baseball, but who lost in the playoffs - sort of like the Angels in baseball this year. Actually, it is worth noting that three of the four teams with the best record in baseball have all been eliminated from the playoffs, so you just never know. In baseball, the playoffs are considered a bit of a crap-shoot, and I think in tennis it is similar. Roger could have won Wimbledon - he wasn't far off. I'm only saying that we should recognize this and not only wins. There's a reason the ATP awards 1200 points for being the runner up at a Slam - it is very, very hard to get there.

We aren't disagreeing on much Dude. But with these top guys the year centers around the big 4 tournaments. Of course they aren't the only thing that matter to them but legacy wise they are the biggest thing by far. Being #1 is also a big thing for the legacy especially when we are talking age records that Roger could set by getting back to #1. Winning another YEC would also be a nice resume buffer.

Winning MS tourneys, having the most wins this season, being the most consistent player is highly impressive...but doesn't really add anything to Roger's stellar resume. As of now we are just saying he is playing great for a 33 year old. If we ended the season right now I'd say the best thing that came out of it is that he might not have to go through both Rafa and Nole at the next AO. If he wins YEC and/or finishes #1 then that's obviously the great achievement/s he had this year and then I'd say he had a decent/great year (great if he finishes #1).

I see your point about if he played like Cilic or Stan this year but that doesn't negate the fact that he would trade that in a heartbeat with the year he's had. Would it be an indicator of future success if he stunk up the place most of the year but won a major? Yes and no. But regardless he still would have had the extra slam as an old man.

 

[Kieran]

His record as a 33 year old is already exceptional. His longevity and stamina are unprecedented, Darth, these are serious achievements. I get tired of saying it but Roger is like Dorian Gray, when you think of absolutely everybody else. He's a physical freak. So why you think that yet another major is the only measure of a great season for him is baffling: the fact that he dispatched Nole so often this year, and reached a slam final and 2 other semis, might still finish #1 and could yet win the WTF is a WTF-year, indeed...

 

[DarthFed]

His record as a 33 year old is already exceptional. His longevity and stamina are unprecedented, Darth, these are serious achievements. I get tired of saying it but Roger is like Dorian Gray, when you think of absolutely everybody else. He's a physical freak. So why you think that yet another major is the only measure of a great season for him is baffling: the fact that he dispatched Nole so often this year, and reached a slam final and 2 other semis, might still finish #1 and could yet win the WTF is a WTF-year, indeed...

Getting to a slam semi or even final is not an achievement, especially for Roger. All that gives him is money he doesn't need and ranking points (which can be important for him to stay in top 4, get in top 2, possibly get #1). But we agree that winning WTF and especially getting #1 would be monumental and would add something big to his resume. So it remains to be seen how he finishes the year, but I'd imagine his expectations are still high and he knows being close to winning another major isn't good enough for him.

 

[Billie]

It seems that people still live in past and fail to recognize that it is very hard to reach a major final, let alone win one these days. The tour is so physical, that players don't stand a chance of making a significant progress until their mid twenties. Rafa can't even play a full season in the last couple of years, others have to pick and chose where to give their best; playing 2 weeks (not even thinking about 3) in a row is almost a suicide now and players regularly get tired and injured after playing so much tennis. Technology is great, only when it isn't.

 

[Kieran]

Exactly, Billie. Others are feeling the physical strain of the grueling tour, but Roger is doing great. Reaching a slam final is a great achievement for a 33 year old, regardless of who they are. If it isn't, and we can only measure him beside his 25 year old self, then even winning one major is a bad year for Roger these days...

 

[Billie]

Yep Kieran. These days the most important thing is staying healthy and plan your schedule wisely. In the lieu of what happened afterwards, it seems that both Nishikori and Cilic lucked out in this year's USO when their opponents were feeling the heat/tiredness. But that is now part of the tour, you have to take advantage of every little thing and opening that top guys give you (like Simon in Shanghai as well).

When I read some of these posts, I feel like they are talking about robots, not human beings that get affected by a lot of things.uzzled