The race for #1

First topic message reminder :

I just took a look at the rankings and realised that today isn't just about taking #2, it's about closing to less than 2000 points on #1.

Federer has one event left between now and post-USO where he defends significantly more points than Djokovic. The Slams will be key, but he's so far ahead in the race from the day after the USO that it's becoming a serious possibility.

The mood will change of course if he loses today, but arguably it shouldn't; it's an overstatement to say its in his hands but with the Rome draw offering further encouragement it does look like he has a serious shot at it.

Fitness is the key.

Cheers Lags...here it is:
http://2012.itftennis.com/olympics/players/ranking-points.aspx

Good assessment lucuismann...written like that it seems Feds chances are pretty good of at least making #1 at some point this year. You feel Nadal or Nole need to go on a tear to stop him making it now.

The Olympics was the equivalent of 800 points last time. It shows the dodgy status of the Olympic compeition that they haven't kept consistent point scores. The lower score is well-merited because the Olympic field is not just small, 64, but the insistence on setting participation by reference to nationality means that you lose a lot of top players from countries like Spain.

I like Luciusmann's analysis - I'd love it if Fed could get to No. 1 again, preferably with yet another slam. I still don't expect either.

Thanks for link lydian.

Just as an aside .... couldn't help noticing the rather odd number of points for the Women's Gold : 685

(or maybe that's in line with other WTA point allocations ..?)

I like Luciusmanns analysis too.

The only thing missing is shocks, and there will be some. I just can't see this business of the top 4 making everything carrying on. Hopefully it won't be Fed blowing out, but it could be.

Raonic at Wimbledon, anyone?

Indeed, barrystar

Folk who don't follow tennis year round might be forgiven for wondering why the Olympics, with all its international and great historical (for most disciplines, though not tennis of course) status should be worth 750 to the winner whereas a 'mere' annually-held tournament, the WTF formerly Masters Cup, is at 1500. But of course the latter offers no easy rides, given its field of only the best eight players in the world and hence the true cream of the sport.

Personally I think the Olympics shouldnt be linked to ATP points at all.

Amazing how fast 4 years has come around since Beijing and watching Blake feeling pee'd off with Gonzalez for THAT shot. I thought then that Federer would have no chance at another shot at Gold singles...but here we are and at the moment he's effectively the best player on tour. 10/10 for his durability and determination to the cause. I also wonder how much OG has been motivating him to carry on as well given its only that and DC where he has holes left in the CV...oh and of course 286weeks and 7yrs at #1...nearly all of which could be addressed this year (besides DC).

I hadn't really factored in the potential of a shock, although the fact Fed went out in the quarters @ Wimbledon last year was quite a shock at the time, so in many ways he's in a position to gain from that this year. Given he requires so much less (from tournaments) than his main competitors, he's ideally placed to take No.1 @ some point. There's three points at which it probably would happen: after Wimbledon, after Canada/Cinci or after the USO. It is possible Nadal could even take No.1, but he'd need to hang onto RG and then win Wimbledon or the USO. But again, he doesn't gain that many points, and with these things, it is relative to how his main competitors perform.

What isn't commented on much, but which we should realistically think about too is that Djokovic could easily slip from No.1 to No.3. It's not only Wimbledon and the USO where he defends a lot of points, over the next 3 1/2 months, he has a total of 6, 600 to defend (majority of his points), including Rome and Canada. Losing either Wimbledon or the USO would put Nadal in a position to overtake him if he can win Canada or Cinci. This just illustrates how tight the top 3 spots are in the coming months.

I think slightly above 50/50 chance that Federer will be ranked no 1 for at least one week this season, but definately less than 50/50 chance for year end no 1.

For me it has always been about the year end number 1. I have to say fed is making an excellent push and playing great tennis the last six seven months. I still think Nole will win enough to retain his hold wire to wire this year for the number 1 ranking. I think this season nothing has been decided and none of the top players have been able to dominate this year as in the past few years where one player was the clear and dominant figure from start to finish.

Fed really has his slam chances helped if he can get into the top 2 then Nadal and Djoko might have to fight it out for a couple of slams at the semi level .In my mind that is probably fed's biggest goal to get back to the top 2 and stay there for a while maximizing his probability for having Nadal and Djoko being put in the same half while he gets murray at a slam.

Amidst all the speculation about his prospects (however realistic or otherwise .... according to your POV) for regaining Top Dog status, there is at least one definite by-product which might give the Fed some additional comfort, ie other than his move back up to No. 2

Yesterday's Madrid win means he now has 74 career titles to his name, so just two behind Johnny Mac

Every reason to suppose that he will overtake him, although no possibility IMO of ever catching either of the only other two higher on the list - Lendl (92) and Connors (a ridiculous 108 )

Mac of course will always deserve a special accolade for the fact that he also managed to accumulate so many doubles titles. Quite some achievement

In the league of best W/L ratio for career matches against Top Ten players, Federer remains second only to Borg.

Really he'll want more than a week, then he gets yet another record. Although nearly every tournament he wins he's either breaking a record and setting a new one or equaling one, so he must particularly want that No.1 spot for more than just the record. In many ways, I think he wants to prove to himself he can get it, after slipping in 2008, he was able to get it back again and I'm sure he'll recognize that he slipped through 2010 and into 2011 so being able to get it back, when there's tough competition out there will be quite an achievement.

Fed's chances of being 2nd seed for RG depend upon Rome falling just right. Assuming Nadal doesn't fail early, Fed has to make the SF and probably lose to Djoko because I think Djoko would have the better chance of winning a final vs. Nadal than Fed in his 10th claycourt match of the fortnight. Fed still hasn't decided whether he's playing....

If Fed does not make No. 2 for RG then he will almost certainly have to wait for the US Open because Wimbledon adjust the points for seeding by adding 100% of the grass points from 2011 and 75% from 2010, which would give Nadal 2,700 additional points - there's pretty much no way Fed can hope to claw that back.

My guess is that if you could truly extract them from him, Fed's aims (hopes) this summer would be a slam, #1, and the Olympics - in that order.

Federer is still unsure if he will play Rome. Reportedly he is in pain after Madrid...

hawkeye wrote:Federer is still unsure if he will play Rome. Reportedly he is in pain after Madrid...

As you have said, that is the real issue of Madrid, whether the surface was unsafe for players as Nadal and Djoko clearly felt. If Fed is injured I'll be peed off, but ultimately it was his choice to press on for the win, so he takes responsibility and may turn out to have been unlucky, as Benneteau was at Monte Carlo.

I'd say you have his preferred order spot on there barrystar.

The Olympics Gold would be nice for the CV and I guess for his diehard fans, but another Slam at this stage of his career would bring far more satisfaction for himself, and more respect from his contemporaries (and indeed past legends too) - as would regaining Number One.

ps ref possible withdrawal from Rome - would that make it only his second or third withdrawal immediately ahead of actually starting a tourney, ie specifically because of injury as opposed to a pre-planned spell of R & R ??

I agree that year end no 1 is what really matters. This can also be more easily compared with bygone eras when the best player of each year was recognised even if in a more informal way.

The beauty of the system is that the ranking at any moment is exactly the same achievement as y/e, unless you think January really is fundamentally more different from December than that is from November.

There is a decent chance he could clinch the End No.1. Winning a slam would give him a 75% chance of getting it but even if he doesn't, he defends 3, 000 points in a three week period (at the end of the season) when it's well documents that Nadal and Djokovic are physically spent. He also has the opportunity to pick up points @ Shanghai too. Let's not forget, his indoor hardcourt record is remarkable, and all of the points he defends in that 3 week period will be indoors. If he holds onto the bulk of them and contests and goes deep in Shanghai, he'll be looking good to end the year as No.1, 9 years after he first claimed it. We'll have a better idea of how likely this is after Wimbledon (when most the year's points will have been allocated).

socal1976 wrote:For me it has always been about the year end number 1. I have to say fed is making an excellent push and playing great tennis the last six seven months. I still think Nole will win enough to retain his hold wire to wire this year for the number 1 ranking. I think this season nothing has been decided and none of the top players have been able to dominate this year as in the past few years where one player was the clear and dominant figure from start to finish.

Fed really has his slam chances helped if he can get into the top 2 then Nadal and Djoko might have to fight it out for a couple of slams at the semi level .In my mind that is probably fed's biggest goal to get back to the top 2 and stay there for a while maximizing his probability for having Nadal and Djoko being put in the same half while he gets murray at a slam.

Strange. Back in February you were saying that 4 Slams in a row was the same achievement as a calendar Slam. Why would observing the calendar matter for one achievement but not the other?

Ooh, I wonder why?

Did u read the post BB, I said I think Novak will hold federer off. And actually on the year end number one I have been consistent for many years and on this particular site have posted my position on it even when Djoko wasn't number 1. I love how you try to make every thing I say about Djokovic. Do you contend that there is nothing particularly special as finishing out the season as number 1? Is it no more prestigious in your mind then holding the number 1 ranking for a week in march?

I have no view on it, I just find it interesting that you are on record saying 4 in a row is as big as a calendar slam, but the same doesn't apply to #1.

Actually what I find strange is that you run a company but have a fundamental problem with reading comprehension. I have this problem with you all the time, I continually have to argue with you about what your misreading of my posts are.

1. I never said that the calendar slam was not more prestigious than 4 in a row, in fact I said that it had more mystique. But i did point out that 4 in a row was still a remarkable accomplishment, what exactly could your beef there be, it is basically the same thing, the only difference being one started in January.


2. I have always stated, even on this website that the most prestigious week at number one is the last one. And this is not a view particular to me. It is view frankly held by many and stems from the fact that the year end #1 is the ranking that reflects all the points earned in one year.

Nothing inconsistent there.

Actually you said "I will say that it is the same accomplishment of (sic) calendar year slam".

Feb 23, 8.21pm. Predictably enough, on the "After winning FO this year Djokovic would be the GOAT"

When challenged you reiterate that "It is qualitatively the same thing".

Come on, try to remember what you write.

It is entirely inconsistent to draw a different conclusion from the position of the Earth around the Sun for one accomplishment and not the other. Either this sport follows a strict season for achievemt or it doesn't. I don't care which but I certainly don't hold contradictory views.

Why have they dropped the points from last years Rome Masters now and not after this years Rome Masters? Is this a new rankings policy or is it just a result of timing changes within the year?

As a consequence Federer has become the new World No. 2:
1 Djokovic, Novak (SRB) 11,200
2 Federer, Roger (SUI) 9,430
3 Nadal, Rafael (ESP) 9,105
4 Murray, Andy (GBR) 7,500
5 Tsonga, Jo-Wilfried (FRA) 4,930

Last year the Rome Masters tournament took place 9 to 15 May 2011, this year it takes place May 14 - May 20, 2012. As far as I can see they should have kept last years points on the rankings until the end of this week.

I think someone mentioned elsewhere that ranking points for a tournament are only valid for 52 weeks, hence why the Rome points have been take off already. I can see the logic in keeping the points on until Rome is completed, but if the rules say 52 weeks then that's the rules. I have to admit I didn't understand how Fed got to No.2 until I read from others that the tournaments dates had changed.

luciusmann wrote:I think someone mentioned elsewhere that ranking points for a tournament are only valid for 52 weeks, hence why the Rome points have been take off already. I can see the logic in keeping the points on until Rome is completed, but if the rules say 52 weeks then that's the rules. I have to admit I didn't understand how Fed got to No.2 until I read from others that the tournaments dates had changed.

Rules and logic ... If the tournament had been played a week earlier (it is actually less than a week) rather than a week later ... which will have to happen at some point over the next 7 years, ... then according to the "52 week rule", they would have two Rome tournaments counting in the points rankings (during the week after the tournament), which would be stupid, but consistent with the 52 week rule.

Sorry Laverfan for not responding to you more quickly. Thanks for trying to disassemble and to process my points. If for one second I managed to remind you of all these other consistent, hard working players (besides Federer) than maybe my roughness was not in vain. Noleisthebest tried it in a nice way, but we see what happened to her.

I'm still shaking my head while reading some of the posts. It goes from Fed clinching the End No.1 to Nole falling to 3rd place. You can keep calculating and fiddling with results, but at the end Nole's INAT (explanation can be found here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/special_report/1999/02/99/e-cyclopedia/325997.stm) will make dreams of many to disappear like a bubble.

This forum is turning into a wish list instead of fine perceptions such as barrystar's (bravo!):

barrystar wrote:

hawkeye wrote:Federer is still unsure if he will play Rome. Reportedly he is in pain after Madrid...

As you have said, that is the real issue of Madrid, whether the surface was unsafe for players as Nadal and Djoko clearly felt. If Fed is injured I'll be peed off, but ultimately it was his choice to press on for the win, so he takes responsibility and may turn out to have been unlucky, as Benneteau was at Monte Carlo.

Nore Staat wrote:Last year the Rome Masters tournament took place 9 to 15 May 2011, this year it takes place May 14 - May 20, 2012. As far as I can see they should have kept last years points on the rankings until the end of this week.

I tend to agree. Rules are cear, but for me being #1 means having the best set of results from the last run of every event.

Fed's still #3 in my system, but if he plays here #2 is well in play.

bogbrush wrote:The beauty of the system is that the ranking at any moment is exactly the same achievement as y/e, unless you think January really is fundamentally more different from December than that is from November.

There is a certain logic behind this for sure, but it's the idea of a complete season.

If Man Utd get the most points in the Premiership from January 1st - December 31st then that's not the same achieviement as actually winning it.

And no 1 at any complete moment can't be compared with bygone eras, when there was no ranking system, and only the best player of each calendar year was recognised. Number of years as the dominant player is a GOAT contending metric which is of interest.

Also, if you get year end no 1 you're likely to stay there for over 2 months whereas in mid season you could be displaced a week or two later which makes it seem more significant.

bogbrush wrote:

Nore Staat wrote:Last year the Rome Masters tournament took place 9 to 15 May 2011, this year it takes place May 14 - May 20, 2012. As far as I can see they should have kept last years points on the rankings until the end of this week.

I tend to agree. Rules are cear, but for me being #1 means having the best set of results from the last run of every event.

Fed's still #3 in my system, but if he plays here #2 is well in play.

Maybe you're right actually, but the basic problem here is crediting 100% to something that happened 51 weeks ago and 0% to something that happened 53 weeks ago. 51 weeks ago is worth the same as 1 week ago and 53 weeks ago the same as 20 years ago. It's a bit silly for me, and will inevitably lead to funny happenings.

touch(A)parabola wrote:Sorry Laverfan for not responding to you more quickly. Thanks for trying to disassemble and to process my points. If for one second I managed to remind you of all these other consistent, hard working players (besides Federer) than maybe my roughness was not in vain. Noleisthebest tried it in a nice way, but we see what happened to her.

I'm still shaking my head while reading some of the posts. It goes from Fed clinching the End No.1 to Nole falling to 3rd place. You can keep calculating and fiddling with results, but at the end Nole's INAT (explanation can be found here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/special_report/1999/02/99/e-cyclopedia/325997.stm) will make dreams of many to disappear like a bubble.

This forum is turning into a wish list instead of fine perceptions such as barrystar's (bravo!):

barrystar wrote:

hawkeye wrote:Federer is still unsure if he will play Rome. Reportedly he is in pain after Madrid...

As you have said, that is the real issue of Madrid, whether the surface was unsafe for players as Nadal and Djoko clearly felt. If Fed is injured I'll be peed off, but ultimately it was his choice to press on for the win, so he takes responsibility and may turn out to have been unlucky, as Benneteau was at Monte Carlo.

It appears you're referring to me when you suggest it's fanciful to consider Djokovic slipping to third. It's far from that at all. Maybe if you look at the facts dispassionately, just like I did with Federer's chances (by the break down of his points) and illustrated he not only has a very good chance of getting to No.1 but also getting Year End #1 (with certain caveats, the main one being that he wins a slam) then you will see I'm not biased or a blind Federer cheerleader.

Let's look @ Djokovic's defense of titles this year. At a similar point last year, he had 6 titles already (Aussie Open, Dubai, Indian Wells, Miami, Serbian Open & Madrid). Compare that to this year, 2 titles successfully defended. Fortunately, one of those two was also the crucial slam, so he's done a decent job and not to mention that when he has got to finals, he's usually won (2/3). However, the trend is still clear, he's slipped. It was said @ the end of last year and in fact by Djokovic himself: he wasn't going to have the same massively successful year he had last year. He had a combined total of 5, 750 points from those events. This year from the same events: 3, 720. He gained 600 from Monte Carlo, so it's 4, 320. Given that he dropped 2, 000 points was only able to cut it down because he missed Monte Carlo last year and played it this year, he's still lost a lot of points. The fact he missed the Serbian Open isn't significant, because last year he missed Monte Carlo and in fact he gained more points from just getting to the final @ Monte Carlo then he could have if he'd won the Serbian Open.

Let's consider the next phase when he won another 4 titles (Rome, Wimbledon, Canada & USO) and was runner up @ Cinci and got to the semis @ RG: he gained a total of 6, 320 (upto and including the USO). He won slightly more points than the first half of the season. Now it's fair to surmise he probably will lose a similar number of points as he as in the first half of the season (and unlike the first half, he cant compensate by taking part in an extra tournament because the schedule in this part of the season is tight as it is). What's important here is that if he lost another 2, 000 points from his total now, he would be behind Federer and Nadal. So #3. not as far fetched as it sounds, all provided Nadal stays where he is, which is a big if ( a caveat I include in my posts).

Henman Bill wrote:

bogbrush wrote:The beauty of the system is that the ranking at any moment is exactly the same achievement as y/e, unless you think January really is fundamentally more different from December than that is from November.

There is a certain logic behind this for sure, but it's the idea of a complete season.

If Man Utd get the most points in the Premiership from January 1st - December 31st then that's not the same achieviement as actually winning it.

And no 1 at any complete moment can't be compared with bygone eras, when there was no ranking system, and only the best player of each calendar year was recognised. Number of years as the dominant player is a GOAT contending metric which is of interest.

Also, if you get year end no 1 you're likely to stay there for over 2 months whereas in mid season you could be displaced a week or two later which makes it seem more significant.

There are differences; the football season means you play everyone home and away, not so in a calendar year. As for comparability, sure but that's only an issue in that respect.
In any case, anyone knows that it's always wrong for Man United to win anything, and prayers of thanks are still being offered in the bogbrush household for the Miracle of the Etihad (and I'm not a City fan).

Just a note of correction, Djokovic wold be No.2 by 95 points if 2, 000 was taken off him. The point still remains, he will need to do better in this crucial period of the season if he is to securely hang onto No.2 (if/when he slips from No.1) or he will end up #3. It only takes Nadal winning one of the four tournaments Djokovic won and there's a good chance Djokovic will easily end up #3.

@luciusmann
When you compare Nole's last and this year's results you see it as slipping. I see it as good planning. How long can anyone last if they win every tournament every year? Nole has to lose some this year so that he can position himself better for the future (except that his life would be much easier if he signed with Nike…). Otherwise, he knows what he is doing. He is there for a long run, not for a one-shot deals. He invested way too much of his life in tennis to be that stupid.

You see, I do not like Nole just because he is my countryman. For Example, Tipsi and Troicki have achieved more than what they put into their careers. I do not take them seriously. Much of it is luck and Nole being around. On the other hand, Nole breaths tennis day and night. That kind of dedication is what makes him so special. Does anyone understands how many more obstacles (more than any other player) he had to overcome in life to be on the top? He can take a break for few days, but his name is going to be right there for many years (God forbid some tragic event). And again, Nole is not into money. He takes them and gives them to others, mainly. More over, he knows that he carries his nation on his shoulders and that he has a responsibility beyond usual duty of a ordinary professional man.

In meanwhile, people on this forum can wishfully continue to make some strategic plans for Fed to show how he can gain enough points so that he can take No.1, but if you do not tell him your secret forumula, I'm sorry Serbs are also way better in math then Swiss. Here is the ranking list from the last math olympic games:
http://www.imo-official.org/year_country_r.aspx?year=2010&column=total&order=desc&language=en

The tone of your post seems less to do with tennis and more to do with a deep respect for Serbs and Djokovic being a noble embodiment of them. Rather nationalistic in temperament. Cheap point scoring about how Serbs are better than the Swiss @ maths isn't necessary (I'm not even Swiss)!

What's Nole's hard life got to do with his chances of retaining No.1? I'm a bit baffled. What's the relevance of the 2008 Olympics? (Just realised you were talking about the 'Maths' Olympics, I'm sorry, but I actually thought you were referring to something relevant, this is completely irrelevant, you do realise this is a tennis forum, not a maths forum)? A tournament which took place 4 years ago and awards less points than a masters 1000 tournament and therefore has even less of an impact on the world rankings? I applaud Djokovic's dedication to the sports. It's amazing, however you don't award the World No.1 spot on that basis. It's done on your overall performance during the course of the previous 12 months.

I agree, there was no way Djokovic was going to accumulate 0 losses upto this point (like he had last year). However, picking up just 2/6 titles is slipping in anyone's book (not just mine). If you want a comparison, look @ Fed's breakthrough season in 2004. 4 titles (out of 5) in the same period compared to Djokovic's 6, including big titles like the Aussie Open, IW and Hamburg (forerunner to Madrid). Compare it to 2005 over the same period: 6 titles. Yes, not less but more titles. He lost the Aussie Open, but instead gained other titles @ Doha, Rotterdam and Miami (in addition to successfully defending Dubai, IW & Hamburg). So 6 out of 7 he entered.

Maybe you might not regard 2004 as a good indicator, so let's look @ 2006 (compared to 2005) perhaps? You won't get much luck there either. He took 4 titles (out of 6 competitions)over that period, so yes, he dropped titles but only 2 titles from 2005, not 4 titles like Novak so far this year. If Fed could win a similar number of tournaments in the same period year after year and is still playing well @ age 30, why can't Djokovic? I never said Djokovic needs to win all the titles he won last year, but winning @ least half would help him retain No.1. Realistically he won't retain No.1 given how he's not defending his titles well. No amount of Serbian pride is going to change that I'm afraid.

Within this topic I'm giving you the argument why Nole is going to stay #1. The problem is that you cannot conceive that national pride can be one of the Nole's mayor motives to succeed. Simple: The thing with Nole is more about Serbia than about himself (our past has to do with these special uplifting feelings). Did you notice that I wrote my previous message before I even saw his new polo pattern that he was wearing against Tomic? Do you see why I mention this element as an extra pushes to Nole's No1 possition?

Good score in math is not a cheap point, but a big point. Math is relevant to help you to understand who is better in calculating. Fed may have all of your formula for getting to #1, but we can do it better.

Again "slipping" vs. "good planing" is like saying "glass is half empty" vs. "glass is half full". It reveals how scared one may be to see the reality.

Now, we can talk about tennis being played in addition to other elements that surrounds tennis. Yes, I have played a competitive tennis in my youth, so I know a little bit about the game itself.

You haven't given an argument about why Nole is staying No.1 besides jingoistic nationalistic sentiments about why he will which you continue to persist with in your latest post. You've side stepped answering my points because you can't argue with them. It's simple, Djokovic has won 2 titles this year, Nadal 2 and Federer 4. If this pattern continues, Federer will be No.1, that's a fact (unless you think Djokovic is going to win all the slams this year, I wouldn't bet on it though).

You keep bringing up irrelevant points about maths and what Djokovic is wearing as if this has a bearing on who's No.1, it doesn't. Again you mention that you play tennis as if that impacts Djokovic's ability to retain No.1, again it doesn't. As you're talking about half empty and half full, to go from 6/6 to 2/6 is down to good planning? Going from 100% to 33% in most situations is bad. Covering it up with talk about 'half empty' and 'half full' is simply an attempt by you to ignore the numbers.

I really don't care if Serbia does well in an known competition of Maths compared to Switzerland. I'm not Swiss and I don't think what you've said is going to persuade many people to bank with Serbia on that basis. Let's keep nationalism and nationalistic pride out of this discussion and just talk about tennis. You'll only look silly if we dissect Serbia's recent past.

To sum up, because Serbia outperformed Switzerland at the 2008 maths Olympics, Djokovic (and all Serbians) can "do it better".

USA came third in the same year, way ahead of Serbia. Does that mean Isner is a master tactician on his way to a Golden Slam?

Also here is proof of Federer's intense patriotism : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NChuiwwpr6Q

Watch out, Nole!

We are talking bout top players for #1 spot? Correct? First 3 (as you are saying) have similar chances. I was just adding what is that additional extra thing that Nole has that others do not. For that reason we cannot talk about people like Isner. No math can help that guy to get to #1. Skills + planing and patriotism are winning combo for Nole.

Are you guys preparing your self for Federer to pull out from Rome? You are already finding excuses. Is striking back the best diffence?

Please do not be afraid. Time cures everything.

Sooooo only Nole is patriotic and no one else can plan lol you are risible.

haha 2 times editing but what a sense it was skadddoooshhh bru

This 'additional extra' you allude to appears to be patriotism combined with the fact that some Serbs took part in a Maths competition that most people have probably never heard of. That's why Djokovic will remain No.1 and Federer won't get there? This is wishful thinking. Skills and planning is a winning combination for all top players, not Djokovic alone, and patriotism doesn't particularly factor into this, they're professionals.

Unless you have information the rest of us don't know, we don't know if he is pulling out of Rome. What excuses? Federer has never retired from a match in his career and has been remarkably injury free throughout his career. Why? Mainly because he plans his schedule well. If he pulls out of Rome it'll be for his long term benefit, not a short term gain. I'm sure he'd rather knock out Djokovic @ RG (like last year) than knock out Djokovic @ Rome and then lose to him @ RG. I'd much prefer it that way too.

LuvSports! wrote:haha 2 times editing but what a sense it was skadddoooshhh bru

... that's what I get for posting from my phone...

luciusmann wrote:This 'additional extra' you allude to appears to be patriotism combined with the fact that some Serbs took part in a Maths competition that most people have probably never heard of. That's why Djokovic will remain No.1 and Federer won't get there? This is wishful thinking. Skills and planning is a winning combination for all top players, not Djokovic alone, and patriotism doesn't particularly factor into this, they're professionals.

Unless you have information the rest of us don't know, we don't know if he is pulling out of Rome. What excuses? Federer has never retired from a match in his career and has been remarkably injury free throughout his career. Why? Mainly because he plans his schedule well. If he pulls out of Rome it'll be for his long term benefit, not a short term gain. I'm sure he'd rather knock out Djokovic @ RG (like last year) than knock out Djokovic @ Rome and then lose to him @ RG. I'd much prefer it that way too.

It's a good point, where was the Djoker's patriotism when for three years he was taking MTOs faster than Ronaldo swan dives? There he was, a delicate flower prone to fainting spells, then suddenly after a good pumping from Dr Igor he's a world beater...

I'm deeply sorry to make spelling mistakes and therefore maybe I should't go back to edit my text. But is that your last mean of deffending your "points"?

Math was there to let you know that your numbers are your fantasies even if you bring into your equation the possibility of Nole breaking his leg.

Well at least I provoked you to show your real characters. Thanks for sharing!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RwcfY0Ldf2Q

touch(A)parabola wrote:Noleisthebest tried it in a nice way, but we see what happened to her.

NiTB had her viewpoint(s). She made her choices. I do not think it is appropriate to discuss this on a thread. We can discuss via PM, if you like.

touch(A)parabola wrote:I'm still shaking my head while reading some of the posts. It goes from Fed clinching the End No.1 to Nole falling to 3rd place. You can keep calculating and fiddling with results, but at the end Nole's INAT (explanation can be found here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/special_report/1999/02/99/e-cyclopedia/325997.stm) will make dreams of many to disappear like a bubble.

This forum is turning into a wish list instead of fine perceptions such as barrystar's (bravo!):

What you state so eloquently, is perhaps what you wish with a tinge of Nationalistic fervour when you mention 'INAT' and Djokovic. There are many wonderful Serbian players, I have followed JJ, Ana and others. I am surprised you do not mention any WTA players, but stay with ATP. The Serbian WTA players also deserve credit.

aaaah Ivanovic, swooooon