Where does the final leave us now?

First topic message reminder :

As Rome is completed we are left with much changing and much staying the same. It seems that those who predicted the early demise of Nadal's dominance were mistaken. Unfortunately, due to the change of time in the schedule i was only able to watch the last 5 minutes of the match so I don't have that accurate a gauge on Nadal's play. However he has looked to be rejuvenated and primed for a defense of his Roland Garros title. Nadal is most certainly on the upswing.

For Djokovic the picture is much more mixed. There is no more denying it, he hasn't looked at his best, but he has been good enough to have a reasonably steady number of results that still give him the pole position for securing the number 1 ranking. Yet, for Djokovic to contemplate a victory in RG and a Nole slam he will have to up his level significantly. Now it is Novak looking at a 2 match losing streak to his nearest rival. To me he has not been as consistent and as authoritative with his forehand this year as compared to last year. When he hits it well it is still fearsome, but there seems to be more days this year where his forehand will go off the reservation.

For Federer, well Roger is sitting pretty as usual. His game is in tact and he has to feel good about his chances to get another bite at a slam. He has been the model of stability while at the same time lacking in my mind the ability to beat his two younger rivals enough to make a real move to the number 1 ranking. Still if a draw even half way opens up at a slam giving Roger the opportunity of only playing one of the top 2 on his way to a title then Roger could very well win number 17 this year.

And lastly for Murray, Andy seems to be the one who has unfortunately not had the best clay court season and has to be scratching his head a bit. He has never been a great clay courter and he didn't have a great season this year. He doesn't seem to have been able to build any momentum from a strong australian open.

Going into Roland Garros I see only two players with real shots at the title. The number 1 favorite as decided by today's encounter is clearly Nadal. The all time clay king seems primed to defend his slam. The second favorite Novak Djokovic. Hasn't played his best but he is the only guy that can legitimately still beat Nadal on a real non-blue clay court. I really thought this FO would be wide open. But really Murray and Federer haven't shown me that they have much of a chance against Nadal, and Nadal's resurgence really cuts down the chances of the field.

luciusmann wrote:I wouldnt suggest that Nadal would fold in a 5th set if pushed to it @ RG by Federer (should it happen) but I do feel that it would be interesting to see how it plays out. Nadal may very well win it, but it's not something we ever seen.

The closest is Rome 2006 and Federer having MPs.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/280559-so-close-yet-so-far-roger-federer-rome-2006

Also, Djokovic came back from a 4-2 deficit at AO 2012 to win the match (granted it was not on Clay).

I agree with Lydian I don't give fed much of a chance at all at the french, wimby or the uso I could see fed making a push and possibly getting the win. But I find it hard to picture a scenario where in back to back matches fed is able to hold his backhand together under the extreme pressure Novak and mainly Nadal will put it under. Back to back matches where Roger will have to hit several high backhands to win the majority of points against his fitter and faster opponents on his least favorite surface. I just don't see it. And at RG with how steady both of the higher ranked players have been Fed is most likely going to have to beat one of them in the semi and the other in the final.

Firstly, socal, nowhere have I said Federer has a 'strong chance' @ RG or I've at the very least made it very clear that Nadal is most likely winner and I've said that on this thread and others. I did say I'd like to see a match stretched to 5 sets between the two, but I've never suggested that it's likely Nadal would lose in those circumstances. The only assertion I've made is that Federer's chances of getting to the final are better than Djokovic's. After all, Djokovic hasn't ever got past the semi final. The same was true @ Wimbledon last year, but Djokovic came red hot off a streak of beating Nadal in 4 finals in a row. Djokovic hasn't had that consistent strong edge over Federer except last year and this leads to my second point.

Lydian, it's correct that Federer hasn't beaten Nadal or Djokovic in a major's final since USO 2007. However that's a clear case of selective fact citation. Semi finals are big match occasions in grand slams, and Federer defeated Djokovic in 2011 RG, in 2008 & 2009 USO too. These matches are not in the distant past, but relatively recent. Both last year and 2010, Federer had match points in the USO semi finals, It only takes a dip for a minute and Djokovic won't be in that match any more, and it's likely it could happen this year but perhaps @ Wimbledon if Federer makes the semis. Confidence has been an issue for Federer and with his confidence high, he might just take those chances.

Anyhow, in terms of the No.1 slot, it will come down to who takes Wimbledon & the USO, at least in deciding the End Year No.1. However, as other posters have said, Fed's got an excellent chance of gaining points @ Wimbledon (to compensate for any short fall @ RG) and then needs to win Cinci or Canada, which is doable. As I've stated in previous posts, Fed is the only one of the top 3 who could realistically get to No.1 without winning a grand slam because he's accumulated so many points so far this year and the latter part of last year. There's little doubt Fed will grab a few weeks @ No.1, which to be honest is what he needs for the record and there's more than a reasonable chance he'll get it. If you're thinking of a longer term stretch, me nor anyone else has suggested he will hang onto it very long. That requires a grand slam, and I'm sure he may get one, however, when and where, is debatable but fortunately, he doesn't need it for the No.1 slot.

Fair point luciusmann although I wasn't trying to be selective. I just don't see him beating Nadal and Djokovic in 2 Bo5 matches at business end. Even if he beats Djokovic (if they're in same half) do you really think he can beat Nadal on red clay or any clay over 5 sets? His only chance was like in Hamburg 07 or Madrid 09 when Nadal was cream crackered. But I don't see him beating Djokovic now either...this is nearly another year on from RG11 and USO11 and I just dont see him having the weapons over 5 setsvon clay to beat either of the top 2. Wimb and USO may be different but we have to acknowledge there's a reason he hasn't won a slam for 2.5 years now...but maybe he'll do a Wozniacki and get the #1 ranking without winning a slam?

I agree lydian, there's no denying that RG is not likely to be where Fed's 17th slam will occur. The idea he would take RG is very unlikely however, my expectation is that he can make the final, and that would he helpful if he wants to make a strong push for No.1.

Doing a Wazniacki and taking the No.1 slot for a few weeks is hardly a terrible sin! After all, he has won all the slams in the past and he's regarded as one of the best tennis players of all time (neither is true for Wazniacki). Hanging onto the No.1 spot for a length of time will require winning a slam (or two) and that understandably, is where the doubt is (among most posters and myself). Getting the No.1 spot is an easy enough goal for Fed given his points break down.

My view, and it's only slightly changed, is that when Fed gets that next slam is more a matter of where and when and not if. I haven't written him off because clearly the confidence may be a factor in helping him win one again. However, the confidence is unlikely to push him to victory in RG. He hasn't won a grand slam in 2 1/2 years, that can't be ignored, but nor can his great recent form which has seen him win so many tournaments over the last 9 months. The defining factor Fed has quoted is that his confidence has been higher. I, like others, would like to see if this confidence will bear up under the intense pressures of Bo5 grand slams matches. I can understand the doubters, but we haven't seen how much this confidence will help in grand slams. We'll get an indication, if Fed can pull through upto the semis without dropping a set, it bodes well, but of course the semi final is the test itself. Anyhow, how well he does @ RG does tell us much in any case. Last year he got to the final @ RG, and then what happens in subsequent slams? He exits the next 3 @ the semis! A real show of intent would be dismissing Djokovic in straight sets, and somehow, that isn't likely (he didnt even manage that last year)!

Yes he's had good form but I dont believe it will translate into many more titles (although I think the Olympics is his best chance of a 'major' title this year even though its only 750pts, and I think he really wants that too).

But you know I just dont see Fed winning another slam...and its not biased opinion, just my own opinion based on time passing, the top2 being incredibly strong and the field behind Federer getting stronger too...guys like Berdy, JMDP, Raonic, etc, have all shown they can hurt him in matches and so far I think its only been his serve keeping him in many close matches...especially Madrid recently where Berdych was better from the back of the court.

Of course, he still has a chance...but it is that, a chance. I know he was unlucky at USO11 vs Djokovic having 2 MPs but then I dont think he would have beat Nadal in the final anyway. So we'll see of course and I'm more than happy to be proved wrong. You feel he needs a Sampras moment to cap off his career rather than continue along slam-less and eventually decide to call it a day at the end of a year, or at Basel, etc. But therein in lies the question...what would be the best way for Federer to end his career?

It's an interesting question about when and where he ends his career, although from what he's said, it doesn't sound like it will be soon....?

All I can say about your pessimism, which btw, is fully justified is that I felt that way about Chelsea winning the Champions League, and everyone else (other teams, media pundits and newspaper commentators) said that too (given how they slipped in the Premier League). They look finished off by Napoli, then there's no chance against Barcelona and then Bayern Munich are dangerous and even when it went to penalties, I myself thought it was over! What that showed me is that, even when it looks incredibly unlikely, it's not over and it's that sort of belief that allows these top players to keep winning when it seems unlikely.

Also, don't forget, the same issues Federer faces (age) is one leveled against Chelsea. Just like Chelsea, Federer hasn't been doing well on the tour until recently (Chelsea were doing badly in the Premier League until March) and just like Chelsea, he'd been knocked out @ the semi final appearances more often recently. In Chelsea's case, the last time they even reached a final was in 2008! There's no doubt football is fiercely competitive. If a team like Chelsea can make a come back, then so can Federer. How likely is another matter and we can only see if Federer can translate and carry over that very good form into the grand slams, and that's what I'm waiting to see. In fact, if he can even raise it (like Chelsea did). So despite the pessimism you and others have expressed, weirder things have happened, like Chelsea winning the Champions League (!) and the comparisons are uncanny and it's what makes sport so exciting. If it was as predictable as you're saying, it wouldn't be as exciting!

What would be the best way for Federer to end his career?.
Beating Nadal in a winbledon slam final, while tieing with Sampras, 7 Winbledon slams, unlikely, only thee top 2 can stop Federer those.

Hmm interesting stuff Luciusmann.
Federer=Chelsea

Firstly I think as a Nadal fan, its a bit of an underestimation of Federer. Really I think Chelsea struggled in the first part of the season, but Roger's actually put in some good performances and maintained consistency. Chelsea were in turmoil for a while but Roger's not really been in turmoil, he's got unstuck against some really good opponents.
Nevertheless I also have to say it is easier to win in football, even if you don't play well. Chelsea were outplayed several times but won, if Federer gets outplayed by a top opponent it's highly unlikely he'll win. Thus I believe a gap in ability/form is further magnified in tennis, it is harder to win as the underdog in tennis.

But overall I do believe that the two points cancel each other out and you are right. Yes, I believe that Chelsea were not as good a position as Roger is now but the fact it is easier to win even when outplayed in football balances this out.
Hence i think Chelsea's chances before the QF of the CL is similar to Fed's position now. There is a chance he will win it, but he is not the favourite.

I agree IMBL, he is certainly not favourite @ RG and he can't be rated @ better than 50/50 @ the others (even if that). I watched the second half of the Champions League final (I was watching the Federer Djokovic Rome match in the first half) but according to what my brother said, Chelsea were getting dominated. Now there is a similarity, in that, if you concede a goal or two, you can recover and win if your performance picks up. Now in tennis and especially a Bo5 grand slam match, you can lose the first set, and even a second, but rally and still win. When Chelsea went down a goal, it looked like game over but they rallied and struck back. Fed has done it in the past, when he was facing the possibility of going 2 sets down in the Wimbledon final 2009, I cant think of when it's happened recently, and that's where the doubt creeps in. I think many Fed fans agree, if he's to win these days, he needs to start superbly and continue like that and can't afford slips in form. That's exactly what happened against Tsonga @ Wimbledon '11and Djokovic @ the USO '11, 2 sets up and then what happens? He dips and it's these dips that have cost him both matches.

There were some strange losses Fed had last year, Melzer? Gasquet? Chelsea had some strange losses in the Premier League too until they replaced their manager. The key is that the 'old guard' as they were called in many ways saved Chelsea and won them the Champions League. The jury is out on whether Fed's age and experience can help him deliver another slam, I think it's possible, but as I've often said, we won't know when and where. His returning confidence gives hope, but it needs to be seen in grand slam matches.

I'm not writing Federer off! IMO if he plays Djokovic at RG he would be a slight favourite or at the very least has a 50/50 chance. And who says he has to play Djokovic to win the title. Rafa may be a little more tricky...

Lucius, I would be surprised if Fed gets the number one ranking. He has a real chance at wimbeldon because last year he lost in the quarters and if he has a good wimbeldon this year getting to the final it will help him greatly close any points gap. But I think either Novak or nadal are going to win RG, if that is the case it will be very tough FEd to get the number 1, especially if Djoko wins RG. I think for Fed to get the #1 ranking he has to win wimbeldon, and I think that is going to be tough, possible but very difficult. As lydian has pointed he doesn't just have to worry about nadal or Djoko the rest of the field has also improved their ability to beat federer. Players like Berdych and Tsonga in recent years have knocked him out of wimbeldon. Still the main hurdle is Nadal and Djoko both have been so consistent that Fed will almost certainly need back to back 5 set wins against these guys in the semi and final and I think at this age that is probably not going to happen. In my mind to get a slam fed needs one of these two guys to get knocked out early, preferrably Nadal from his perspective. Unfortunately, it has been awhile since either of these two have lost early in a slam.

Also I just don't see the parallel to chelsea. For one thing football is a team sport. Fed doesn't have the luxury of relying on other players to bail him out when he makes a mistake or bringing in younger substitutes to run down balls. It is part of what makes tennis so tough as you age. I will say this if nadal or djoko go out early and Fed is playing well I think he has a chance at another slam at wimby or the USO.

Socal, citing Berdych and Tsonga is so last year. Neither player has had any success against Federer in the last 9 months. Either the confidence Fed has found has had an impact or the other two have dipped in form. Judging by the Madrid final, the latter seems rather unlikely, at least for Berdych.

I understand being American that you won't necessarily get the football parallel @ all! Do you follow Chelsea (or Champions League ) football? It doesn't sound like it. Many of the players who won the Champions League were the 'old guard' not the younger players you mention can take up the slack in a team. The man of the match, Drogba scored the goal which kept them in the final and scored the winning penalty! He's 34 years old. Regarded in football terms as beyond his peak (same as Fed). Cole and Lampard, also regarded as the old guard, who also scored in the penalty shootout. In fact, it was the recent signing of Juan Mata would missed and he's 24. So the analogy actually holds better than the holes you're trying to find.

We can't comment on how things will go on grass between Fed and Djokovic on grass, even with Nadal (it's been so long since they played) however we get a better idea @ the USO and it was close. It could change, that's all I am saying, i.e. Fed could beat Djokovic in the semi final @ the USO or even on grass, we just don't know until they play (@ least on grass).

In sport anything is possible though.
A tough task for Federer no doubt, let's see what happens.

Federer is bossing players like Tsonga and Berdych these days, I don't think he'll lose to players like them at Wimby unless he has a bad day.

Exactly IMBL, it's almost as if posters think things are exactly the same as last year, when they're not. Understandably, Fed doesn't appear any close than post Aussie Open 2010 @ the slams. I think also that because of Fed's loss to Djokovic (in Rome), some posters are writing him off on that basis. These things do need to be put in context: @ the same point last year, we were looking @ 3 Fed losses to Djokovic, not 1 like now. As I've said, we really need to see if he can carry this form into grand slams and not necessarily RG either because if we're honest, a win there is not expected or likely. It's @ Wimbledon and the USO.

If he has mastered the art of grinding out wins against the likes of Tsonga & Berdych, there's a good chance he'll get to the semi final @ Wimbledon and I don't think Djokovic and Fed have ever played on grass? That would be a true test of battles. Grass would also be a good test if he's on Nadal's side of the draw because Fed said recently that part of his loss to Nadal in 2008 was because he was mentally scarred by his annihilation by Nadal @ RG immediately before. Maybe the result will still be a Nadal win, or maybe not, but either way, Wimbledon does seem like the more exciting tournament than RG (in that it could be unpredictable).

Lucius I actually know a fair bit about football and I watched the match with chelsea, you must remember my family is iranian. But I don't see the parallel because of the reasons I have discussed. I am not saying fed can't win a slam or compete at the highest level. But being number 1 with Djoko and Nadal around at this age I think is a big ask. Certainly Roger has all the ability in the world but at this age I don't see him consistently getting the better of both these guys, which most likely that is what he would have to do to get to number 1.

I can't help but say this: there's a bit of hog wash there socal...

Let me explain. Firstly, you dismissed the parallel with Chelsea which you then tried to rebutt by saying there are younger players to take up the slack in a football team (so it's not the same as tennis, older players can be compensated for). However, as I mentioned, it was the 'old guard' players who won them the match! They were the very players you said wouldn't perform as well. Your reasons can't get around this fact. Drogba/Lampard/Cole, all older players scored 3/3 of the goals (they took) which won them the Champions League. 1 out of the 2 younger players did. The facts speak for themselves.

You cite age, and I've partly rebutted the point about age but let me make the second point. Those players who did win a grand slam in their 30s, were usually legends of the game. Sampras, Agassi and Laver among them. There's no doubt Federer is a legend of the game, having won more slams than all of them. Certain factors will need to align for him but I've said that for a long time.

I'm a bit disappointed, your post is a rehash of the same post you had further above, just briefer. The latest doesn't address any of the points I made about the parallel. The parallel is more similar than you think. However, let me also point out, just like most commentators and fans, most of them were writing of Chelsea saying they just didn't have it in them, a team of has beens who've passed their prime. Sound familiar? I don't suppose you will get the daily diet of press reports and commentary we got in the UK of all of this and then they all seemed stunned when Chelsea won! That's the angle I'm coming from, and what you're saying is remarkably similar to what they were saying. Age is not necessarily the massive barrier you make it out to be. If Fed was 35, sure, but 30? We'll see.

I actually don't disagree that it is a possibility for fed to get the number 1 ranking, I just don't think it is very probable. I mean I would need pretty good odds lucius to lay my money on fed regaining the number 1 even for a week this year. I mean much crazier things have happened in sports so I do agree with you on that level. Absolutely, like I stated fed has the ability to do it but I would be pretty surprised if he did. Afterall, Agassi at the age of 33 did attain the number 1 ranking in 2003 for a short stint. And fed has much more ability than Agassi and i agree I mean being just over 30 doesn't mean you can't compete and beat younger players. Just like Cole, Drogba, and Lampard, maybe most importantly Cech.


Here is one important distinction between Chelsea's run through one euro tournament and what Fed has to accomplish. Chelsea didn't have to play Barcelona and Bayern six or seven possibly 8 times a year like Fed will have to winning a fair number of those big matches. The nature of the tour is just different than the champions league. In the champions league a lot of times the road goals and penalty kicks and a team that defends well like chelsea can stifle more talented teams. But week in and week out on the tour he will have to show that he can win a majority of his matches against those two players to be number one. That is where I don't see it happening.

I did offer a break down before and Henman Bill offers a break down of who leads in points post USO: https://www.606v2.com/t26143-federer-leads-by-2000-in-race-to-be-1-after-us-open

Here's a brief summary of important stats:

-Fed is on 6, 855 (post USO). Most posters agree that he needs to be on around 11, 000 points to be No.1.
-Right now he leads Djokovic by 1, 975 and Nadal by 2, 665.

Even if we agree that Fed won't win a slam, even if Nadal and Djokovic win a slam each, Djokovic only catches up with Federer (just) and Nadal is still 665 points behind. Of course this assumes Federer wins no points @ those slam (never happened in the last 10 years).

What tournaments are there to come (till September)? Roland Garros, Halle (or Queens), Wimbledon, Olympics, Cinci, Canada & USO. So 7 tournaments in the mix. Nadal and Djokovic have far more points to defend during this period than Federer. Fed needs to gain around 4, 145 points from these 7. Let's say he gets knocked out in the semi finals of 2 and gets to the final of one in the slams (which is reasonable, since he managed that last year) then he takes 2, 640 from them. There's still 4 other tournaments he can gain the remaining 1, 505 he needs. Winning Halle and Cinci gets him 1, 250 and if he makes the QFs @ Canada, like last year, he gets 180. That then gives you slightly below 11, 000 without even factoring in points for the Olympics.

Also, Djokovic has 1, 600 points to defend @ Cinci and Canada, let's say he defends half of them and the other half go to Federer, then he'll only be 400 points behind Djokovic (even if Djokovic has won Wimbledon) and he may even be overtaken if Federer gets to the final @ Wimbledon. The only thing which makes it impossible that Federer gets to No.1 is either Nadal or Djokovic winning both RG & Wimbledon. Is that what you're predicting? Bear in mind 2008-2010 when Nadal and Federer managed the RG-Wimbledon double is actually very rare, last year is more typical, that's why the RG Wimbledon double is so highly regarded in the first place, it's damn hard to do!

So in summary, Djokovic will need a run from now until August like last year to retain No.1 and Nadal needs one like 2010 and Fed just needs to keep the points he won @ the slams last year and improve his masters tally of points. I know which one is easier to do and it's neither route which Djokovic and Nadal have. I hope this explains better.

I know that Fed has less points to defend, it certainly is a very plausible route to the number 1 ranking. But I still don't see it happening. I think if Novak falters, Nadal will grab the lions share of points. If Nadal falters Novak will sweep things up. But your analysis sounds like a very good one. Still a lot of tennis left to be played and both players you mentioned nadal and Djoko are fully capable of going on a run to deny fed the #1 ranking. Sure they have more to do but as you said any of these two pull off the the wimby/RG double it makes your math much tougher for fed. I actually think the guy who wins at RG will have a lot of momentum and lets not forget the extra points from the olympics. Also if Djoko needs points he can enter 500 pointers and 250s as he has only played one non-masters or slam tournament this season. Personally, I think it will be mute because I think Novak will win RG. But your scenario is certainly very plausible.

I have to belatedly agree with Socal.

Roger has a chance but he needs to step up at at least one of the slams or all the big prizes will be shared between Nadal and Djokovic. That would make Roger's path back to number 1 very difficult.

There's no doubt a slam makes it almost certain Fed becomes No.1. Although I've outlined a pretty reasonable route without a slam. I can see your logic socal, if your reasoning is Djokovic will win RG, but I just don't see it if Nadal is in the final. He's lost twice on clay, whereas last year he'd won twice. This is without considering Federer potentially standing in his path. Where was the momentum last year for Nadal to win Wimbledon? I wouldn't over rate 'momentum'. It didn't stop Federer coming very close to defeat by Roddick in '09 @ Wimbledon (despite his own momentum from RG). It also required massive effort from Nadal to win RG-Wimbledon in '08.

It's been shown in the woman's game that you can feasibly get to No.1 without winning a slam. It hasn't happened recently in the men's game, but that's not to say it won't or can't. Decent slam performances and two masters would make Fed a strong favourite for No.1.

The Olympics don't carry many points btw, just 750 for winning the whole thing, that's less than winning a master tournament. A step up from quarters to final @ Wimbledon would net Fed a lot of points (840) and that's without winning it, although if he knocked out Djokovic then there would be a new No.1 but rather difficult to ascertain how things would progress, Federer and Djokovic have never played on grass. Would it be like the USO semi finals? In that case Federer could even have the edge (if it's faster)!

Lucius, I don't dispute the path you have drawn up could happen. And certainly I think you are correct that nadal is the favorite going in. Ideally, for your scenario to work the 2 different people have to win RG and wimby, if the same person either Nadal or Djoko run away with both of them your math breaks down. I really do see the top two being significantly better than Roger in terms of bringing it night in and night out probably due to their age. Roger can reach the highs and at times beat his younger rivals Nadal and Djoko. I think there are an incredible amount of points to be played for in the next 2 months with French, Wimby, and olympics. And I think the winner of Rg is most certainly going to be Novak or Nadal. That individual will also have a lot of momentum going into to the remainder of the summer.

It is correct that based on Rome and the clay court season Nadal should be the favorite. But I have a feeling that Novak is going to find his best or better game for RG. He has had a few distractions and adjustments to make to being number 1. And he may not ever regain untouchable 2011 status. But I think he does have potential for continued growth. When the 5 set Armageddon on the slow clay of RG occurs between Novak and Nadal, I think the deciding factor will be Djokovic's ability to get to Nadal's serve eventually and get the crucial breaks of serve.

2011 was a great year for Djokovic, but not untouchable.

McEnroe 1984. That was as close as untouchable, but even he lost 4 times.

Actually you're somewhat incorrect there socal. Nadal only gains an extra 800 points from winning RG & Wimbledon and in that case Fed can still easily get to No.1 (and in fact it makes it easier)!

Let's assume that Fed doesn't win any slams prior to the USO. There's 3 outcomes which you're postulating are likely:

a) Nadal wins both RG & Wimbledon
b) Djokovic & Nadal win one slam apiece
c) Djokovic wins both

All of these 3 options are likely. What percentage is the key, but let's say they're all equally likely (which to be honest is rather generous to your case). For it to be next to impossible for Fed to get to No.1, it would require outcome c) and that outcome alone. Either a) or b) would still put Federer within a striking distance (provided he turns in decent grand slam performances). Now just looking at the above, it shows you're not looking at the situation objectively at all, but clearly hoping for the unexpected! Something so unexpected that it has only happened once in almost 50 years (i.e. someone holding all four slams simultaneously).

So I hope it's clearer now. Strange as it seems, but a resurgent Nadal doesn't stop Federer from getting to No.1 at all (as you seem to think or understand my case to be resting on), only Djokovic can (as well poor performances from Federer himself) and it requires him to turn in an even better performance @ the grand slams then he did last year, which is what you think is likely! I mean, maybe he might (winning 3 slams in a year is a damn good performance)....but this isn't supported by how he's performed in the season so far this year. Bear in mind, if Nadal wins RG and Wimbledon, his points tally increases by only 800 and he only leads Federer by 1, 000 points, easily caught up with. Although you'll be glad to hear, that even if Djokovic loses Wimbledon to Nadal (in a final), he'll still retain No.1 spot unless Nadal also won Halle prior to Wimbledon.

Fed can be number one for a bit, but I don't see him ending the year at number one unless he wins a slam.

It Must Be Love wrote:Fed can be number one for a bit, but I don't see him ending the year at number one unless he wins a slam.

Ok lets just leave it at that. You beat me into submission are you happy at the risk of devolping carpal tunnel I will simply concede your demand that fed will most definetly be #1 for some point this year. But as IMBL has pointed out I doubt very highly he will end the year as number 1. Lets remember a big reason that fed has so many points between the USO of 2011 and now is because after the USO Djoko gained very few points as he was battling a torn back muscle. He has always played well in the indoor swing winning virtually every indoor tourney on the the tour. So if healthy I don't doubt that novak will win many more points during that swing of the season as opposed to 2011 and seal the year end number ranking, the real number one ranking in my mind.

Fed didn't play Shanghai too, so he can probably get to number 1 for a relatively long period without winning a slam, between USO and one of the indoor events.
But then he has loads to defend and will probably lose his grip then.

Actually if you think about it if we are trying to see who will end the year as number one, we can just follow the 2012 'Race'; ie 2011 is irrelevant. At the moment in 2012 race both Djokovic and Nadal are ahead of Federer, unless he wins one of the slams they be too far ahead.

Yes...but he has the small matter of 1200 pts to defend in the next fortnight yet!

Over FO and Wimby he is defending 1560 points.
Thats approximately equal to 2 semifinals (1440) which is likely.

Also lucius, I think if Djoko wins RG, and adds 1200 to his point total in two weeks your scenario is thrown out. He wins RG and at that point I don't think Fed has a very realistic chance at the #1. Last year Novak only has to defend a semi at RG, he gets passed the semi stage and even loses in the final to Nadal he increases his lead over Fed by about one thousand points, just by reaching the final. I know that Nadal is the favorite but Novak has to be a pretty good chance to do better on his points at RG this year than last year. If he beats Fed in the semi Roger loses 500 points and Novak gains 500 in a fortnight. I think if Novak wins RG your scenario crumbles. It doesn't even require Novak winning wimby. He could have a finals and a win at the next two slams and still hold of Roger. And if Roger has an earlier than expected exit from the FRench everything is out the window. You see there are a lot of variables that isn't taken into account by your more rigid scenario. Lets say Novak reaches the final of RG and roger loses in the quarter that is not that unlikely, if that happens we are talking about 1200 ATP points lost by Roger in just fortnight. Like I said a lot of points left to be played and all the pressure is on Novak and Nadal for certain as they have more heavy lifting to do till the USO, but both are capable of doing a massive point earning run.

Again socal, none of your scenarios consider what happens to other contenders (i.e considers what happens to Nadal, only where Federer is, which is rather silly). You're scenario actually is more rigid because you count on an event which happens once in about 50 years (i.e. one player holding all 4 slams), mine doesn't. You're attempting to pick holes in one of the 3 possibilities that might happen, and in fact pointing to the most unlikely: i.e. b) that Djokovic and Nadal win one slam apiece but having Djokovic win RG and Nadal Wimbledon). Absurd to be fair, very few would think Nadal would win Wimbledon if he lost RG.

Actually, I've made it very clear that for Fed to contend for No.1 he has to have good performances @ slams (but short of winning them) so I'm not quite sure why you've ignored that important caveat? It distorts the impression of my posts (which actually are very reasonable and considers the most likely scenarios qualified by particular caveats).

Again socal, your talking about Novak and Nadal needing 'more heavy lifting to do till the USO'. Sorry to break this to you socal, but Djokovic and Nadal have already earned the points for that heavy lifting (last year), the question is keeping it and more importantly, can Federer add to the points he has. As IMBL pointed out, Fed can exit RG in the semis but if he makes the Wimbledon semi, he's made up the short fall (losing only 120 points). The variables I've considered is assuming Federer will perform like he did last year when he won no slams (so a poor year by his standards), that is perfectly reasonable. I've taken into account most variables but you've conveniently ignored the 1, 600 points Djokovic has to defend over Cinci & Canada. That points tally is crucial, if they go mainly to Federer or Nadal, the only way Djokovic prevents Federer or Nadal from getting to No.1 is by winning both Wimbledon and RG.

Let's see it this way, Djoko is on 11, 800, he gains RG and he has 13, 080. Now he loses Wimbledon to Nadal, so he loses 800 and he goes to 12, 280. Nadal remains on 10, 060. Fed getting to the semis which is more likely than your suggestion of an early exit, means he's on 9, 670. Here's why you're scenario is flawed: let's say Fed wins Canada and exits Cinci in the final, then Fed adds on 1, 330, taking him to 11, 000 but he'll probably be slightly higher (because of points from Halle. Let's say Djokovic exits Canada & Cinci in the quarters then he loses 1, 240, and Fed, without winning a slam takes No.1. This scenario even allows for Fed not to get to any slam finals! There's no dispute Fed's form in Masters 1000 events has been very good and that's why I can easily forecast a situation where he gets to No.1 via that means. There are many variables to consider, that is true, but these variables don't favour Novak, I'm amazed you find this difficult to believe. There's a difference between Fed getting to No.1 and Djokovic: Djokovic, must win a slam and do well at lesser tournaments to stand half a chance, Federer needs good performances @ slams but needs to win the lesser tournaments and he most likely will be No.1. That's the difference. I've even conceded you're rather unlikely Djokovic RG and Nadal Wimbledon win situation and shown Fed can get there.