Race for year-end No. 1 ranking

The position as of September 10 is as follows:

1.	Djokovic, Novak (SRB)	9,910
2.	Federer, Roger (SUI)	8,905
3.	Nadal, Rafael (ESP)	6,840
4.	Murray, Andy (GBR)	6,730

Roger plays the best on the indoors but I think Novak will find away to take it. Hasn't played his best this season or had the best luck in big matches but he is still the leader in points through the slams. It is clearly a two horse race though despite Murrray's recent grandslam success.

I was surprised enough that Federer got the ranking, but it was aided by his great 4th quarter 2011. If he somehow got the y/e it would mean he'd been the best player for 16 months, and that would be seismic.

Odds are 74% Djokovic, 25% Federer and 1% Murray, just for Grinning Greg.

The big question for me is whether Novak can find the resolve for the rest of the season

Olympics (last day) / Toronto (Win) / Cincy (Final) / USO (Final) is a long stretch of almost unbroken tennis with a lot of upset along the way. He may just feel spent.

Alternatively he may have a similar mindset to what I believe Federer had last year - the main goals have passed him by but now is a chance to make a big mark on the season and show that you've still got it.

As for Fed, after USO he said:
Q. Would finishing world No. 1 end of the year still be the ultimate achievement for you, do you think?
ROGER FEDERER: Well, yeah, I've got to go back to the drawing board from here and see what's really the priority, if that's a priority for the end of the year. So I don't know right now.

So it's also hard to know if Fed will go full tilt for the final stretch either. My hunch is that he'd like the WTF but he will take or leave the rest.

Final prediction? I think Djokovic's lead is just big enough now to see him home.

Djoko will, I think, have a bit more in the tank at the end of the season than last year, when he was cream-crackered and had already clinched the yr-end numero uno in any case.
Doubt if Fed, and possibly some of the others, will play Paris as it comes slap bang before the 02 in London.
Of course, it's not certain whether Rafa will play in London. He only has 200 points to defend so may decide to give himself the extra break to be fit for next year.
I can see Murray having a very good end to the year and he has no points to defend in London.

We'll find out soon when we see who plays what. I'd like to see Federer push for the y/e, it's his last chance to grab that and it would be nice to see him add that one to the list.

Of course, if he made it he'd be in very good shape to be #1 after the Australian, up to Indian Wells probably, given what he and Djokovic are defending there. Then again if Murray stormed on now and then won the Australian he could take it.

For me it's Djoko who is the favourite. The clincher for me is that Fed has two big disadvantages:

(a) 1,000 to make up across 4 tournaments
(b) bad balance of the remaining tournaments:

Fed: 3 of those 4 come in consecutive weeks - Shanghai (1,000) one week break Basel (500) Paris (1,000) WTF (1,500). It looks like Paris (1,000) is the one that will 'suffer' so he's effectively only got 3 tournaments, Shanghai (1,000) Basel (500), WTF (1,500) worth a total of 3,000 points in which to get a 1,000 point advantage:

Djoko: the 4 are well spaced and give him a decent period to acclimatise to the different timezones, China Open (500), Shanghai (1,000) two week break, Paris (1,000), WTF (1,500).


A realistic best case scenario for Fed at the WTF is beating Djoko in the SF and winning with a 100% record - that would give him a 1,100 point clawback; to avoid that being decisive Djoko only needs to do marginally better from China/Shanghai/Paris than Fed does from Shanghai/Basel/Paris. So even in a best case WTF scenario for Fed Djoko has a very good chance of ensuring that it's not enough.

Good analysis barry.

The only other factor is whether that USO has any lasting effect on Djokovic. He was completely gone by the last set, running on fumes and unable to move. Even after a few weeks will he want to bounce through China and Shanghai?

bogbrush wrote:Good analysis barry.

The only other factor is whether that USO has any lasting effect on Djokovic. He was completely gone by the last set, running on fumes and unable to move. Even after a few weeks will he want to bounce through China and Shanghai?

Sure - I am assuming that both will give their remaining tournaments a decent go. If one or other is spent and can't muster decent form even if he'd like to that will change the situation. In relation to that Djoko is on record as saying that #1 is important - and he has less to do than Fed, but Fed has been more equivocal (perhaps because he appreciates the difficulties of his schedule) and is even prioritising DC on clay in Holland this weekend.

I make it 51-49 in Djokovic's favour. The Fed has a lot of ranking points to defend over the next few months. Of course he can do it, especially as Djokovic appears to be running on fumes, but Federer is no spring chicken. Ironically, the quarter-final USO exit might help him in that he didn't have to play at least 1 very long match on a hard court. I still make The Fed slight favourite for the WTF but how much energy he'll have by then is the one thing that concerns me.

Murray might be a spanner in the works for both of them. The last thing either wants to see is him go on a winning run and denying them points.

Prediction: The Fed will win Paris, Basel and the WTF, Murray will win Shanghai but Djokovic will amass enough points during those tournaments to keep the Number 1 ranking, if such scenario is possible of course.

Unless Nole has a disaster, I can't see him not doing it

I'd gues SF's of all the events would be enough?

I think Djokovic has the edge. 1000 points is a big gap to overcome considering how many are left to play for. One also needs to remember that Djokovic struggled badly post Us Open last year (partly due to burn-out), so one wonders how well he'll do this time around. BB's point about how the final defeat in the Us Open will affect him is a decent one too.

With Rafa likely missing, another imponderable is the draws. Whoever gets Murray in their half (or group) n the remaining biggies has a much tougher task.

Personally I'd back Djokovic. His run of results this year has been remarkably consistent, and I think he'll go deep enough in the remaining tournies to grab the year end n°1.

A lot comes down to how many points Djokovic takes from China/Shanghai, if he gets the maximum, that will extend his lead to 2, 505 points in the race over Fed. Of course Basel will reduce that by 500 so then he's 2, 005 but even winning Paris and WTF would still make it difficult for Fed because it depends how deep Djokovic goes in Paris and WTF.

Given how many points Fed can pick up (1, 500) at the WTF, I really don't think a 1, 000 point lead (going into WTF) is going to be sufficient for Djokovic to clinch the Year End No.1. The sort of lead he needs is probably around 1, 300 prior to the WTF. It's not a huge amount more but it means he can still get the Year End No.1 even if Fed wins it (more than possible). We'll have a good idea of how likely Djokovic is to get the No.1 after mid October (if he wins either/both China & Shanghai. Shanghai is going to be tricky as he'll have to take down Murray (most likely) but one plus for Djokovic is that he'll most likely play Basel so will play 5 tournaments (4, 500 points) whereas Fed may play 4 but could play just 3 (3, 000) unless he goes for Shanghai so it could come down to if Fed goes to 4 or not. I'd probably add that it'll be important if Fed goes deep or wins Paris again because that would counter balance a potential Djokovic win @ Shanghai and means that if Fed wins the WTF then he's most likely to be Year End No.1.

I'd go with Federer, as over the past two seasons he has shown he can out gain Djokovic after the USO by more than 1000 points :
2010 (Fed 2960, Djoko 1650);
2011 (Fed 3000, Djoko 560).

banbrotam wrote:Unless Nole has a disaster, I can't see him not doing it

I'd gues SF's of all the events would be enough?

SF's would yield about 180+360+360+400 = 1300 points

In which case Federer would need about 2300 points. This could be achieved by
e.g., winning WTF, and Basel and making the final in Shanghai 1300+500+600=2400

2 horse race. Either could win it, it will be interesting to see if they take Shanghai and Paris any more seriously this year.

If Nole had won on Monday, it would have been over. I still think he is the favorite, but Federer does have a chance. However, unless Nole plays relatively poorly, Roger will have to virtually sweep the entire fall season to make it.

bogbrush wrote:it's his last chance to grab that

Why? Maybe I am too greedy but not so certain of this.

HM Murdoch wrote:As for Fed, after USO he said:
Q. Would finishing world No. 1 end of the year still be the ultimate achievement for you, do you think?
ROGER FEDERER: Well, yeah, I've got to go back to the drawing board from here and see what's really the priority, if that's a priority for the end of the year. So I don't know right now.

This was said before the final, so he may have been thinking that - if Nole were to win - he would have almost zero chance. He may be more up for it now. On the other hand, if he is planning to stick around for a few more years, it may be better to take it easy and keep fresh for the next season.

One thing that I was wondeing when I initially read that Roger's reponse was whether maybe he is starting to run out of goals. Maybe it was just me and maybe that was just a very business-like response of one who knows how to plan and realizes plans need to be reviewed with his US Open setback. But something about his lack of certainty about "what next" made me wonder. He did win Wimbledon and did reach #1 (perhaps even more easily than he himself expected) and I know that after that I felt - for the first time in years - that I was not so disappointed if he were to lose next. Maybe he is also slowly reaching the point where it is harder to find motivation.

I hope I am wrong though. Would love to see him finish 2013 at #1.

That's a good point summerblues, I've had the same feeling. I was barely bothered at the Olympics as adding that was a footnote compared to him getting past Pete's #1 record. Missing out by a week on that record would have been galling, especially as it had required some big disasters in the 2010 clay season to fail (like losing o Gulbis from a set up).

Recapturing #1 in the company of peak Nadal, Djokovic and Murray also served a big purpose, dispelling my idea that his status was based on dominating a weaker era. It's obvious now that at his physical peak he'd be dominant with those guys taken back 5 years. But once proven that also is ticked off.

I can see 20 Slams being a stretching target to keep him interested, maybe. 300 weeks at #1 is almost there now, so that'll be gone soon, so why bother pushing himself through the thik of the season?

Thankfully he just likes playing tennis.

Surprisingly while I think Djoko will hold down the year end #1 I think it is much closer than a lot of you guys seem to think. I think it at best a 60-40 proposition. The reason being is that I credit fed with the history of his indoor success in recent years. HOwever Novak is a good indoor player and has won at least once every tournament that is left on the schedule. And this is the first time in a couple years that he isn't dinged up and preoccuppied with Davis cup.

summerblues wrote:If Nole had won on Monday, it would have been over. I still think he is the favorite, but Federer does have a chance. However, unless Nole plays relatively poorly, Roger will have to virtually sweep the entire fall season to make it.

I'm not so convinced that it's quite as hard as you make it sound. The gap right now is only around 1, 000 points and as I've said a few times, is easily overcome if Fed wins WTF but Fed only needs to win it if Djokovic does very well in China/Shanghai and wins the latter which is open to debate given Djokovic's current form.

As Zaron said, it's interesting to look at how both Federer and Djokovic have finished the season (post USO) in terms of points:

2011: Federer 3, 000, Djokovic 1, 650 (lead 1, 350)
2010: Federer 2, 990 Djokovic 1, 150 (lead 1, 840)
2009: Federer 710 Djokovic 2, 260 (lead 1, 550)

---

2008: Federer 1, 240 Djokovic 1, 390 (lead 150)
2007: Federer 1, 890 Djokovic 10 (lead 1, 880)

Prior to 2009, Shanghai was played as Madrid hardcourt so the amount of points both could get was reduced and Djokovic didn't participate in Basel so reasonable comparisons with now can only be made from 2009. As can be seen, in 2/3 years, Federer has a lead bigger than 1, 000 points although in 2009 it was reversed and Djokovic had a big lead. However, in that year Fed had made all the grand slam finals and won 2 of them, winning his first Roland Garros title and breaking Sampras's record of 14 slams. So the weak performance in 2009 may have a logical explanation.

I think if we concede that Fed is likely to win Basel and Djokovic China then Djokovic gets to the semi of Shanghai (his best showing to date) and Fed semi of Paris (more than plausible given his results in the last few years) and Djokovic quarters (his performance varies more) then Fed will have matched Djokovic through most of that but Djokovic going to Paris would increase his lead by 180 unless Fed goes to Shanghai. Then, of course, Djokovic is likely to go to Basel and he's more often than not, made the final, so that gives him another 300. Then Fed needs to gain more than 1, 480 @ WTF. Typically, Djokovic has won at least one or two matches @ WTF, so that just goes to show how close the race may become (although Djokovic would clinch it in this hypothetical set up). Note that Federer only wins 2 tournaments in this situation and look how close he gets thus going to Shanghai would lead him to winning the Year End No.1. As a result, I don't think 60-40 (as you say socal) really illustrates how tight it is for Djokovic. Right now I'd say 52 Djokovic to 48 Federer. However, a big unknown is if Fed goes to Shanghai and the only time he did, he made the final and that of course gives 600 points so then Fed just needs to win the WTF and that would be enough. As I said previously, the key is if either Djokovic or Federer wins Shanghai or Paris, whichever one does has the big advantage unless they win one apiece.

How sweet would it be if Djoko and Fed played for the #1 ranking in the final of the WTF, huh lucius now that would be intense. I kind of wouldn't mind that one bit eventhough I would be biting my nails the whole indoor season.

Djokovic won't touch Federer in the O2.
No chance.

Unless someone takes the roof off, Roger could win the WTF this year in 5th gear.

We will see IMBL a long time between now and then, I still would like to see it though.

I think it will be difficult for Djokovic to beat Fed in WTF but then again, they have never played each other in WTF.

I think if Djokovic is to clinch the Year End No.1 it will be significantly assisted by a win at either Shanghai or Paris so it would be prosaic if Djokovic and Federer fight it out in the final of WTF but I think if Djokovic had got to the final, he would have picked up at least 800 points getting there and thus even if Fed won the final between the two, unless Fed had gone to Shanghai (and picked up a significant number of points, semi or better), Djokovic would still become Year End No.1.

Bravo, lucius you are a whiz with these points breakdowns.

socal1976 wrote:Bravo, lucius you are a whiz with these points breakdowns.

Thanks socal. This is one of the few things I'm still interested in for the remaining tennis calendar because I think China will go to Djokovic, Shanghai to either Murray or maybe Djokovic, Basel and (probably) WTF to Federer which only leaves Paris which could go to any number of players.

I've just checked the winners of Paris and the chances of Federer retaining his title looks slim: the last time anyone did was 40 years ago (Stan Smith) and in the last 10 years there have been 10 different winners. I think in light of this fact Djokovic is probably more of a favourite (for Year End No.1) than I thought so perhaps it's more 55 Djokovic and 45 Federer. I think it may depend on whether Fed decides to go to Shanghai, if he does, it's game on, if he doesn't, I think Djokovic wins fairly easily.

luciusmann wrote:
I've just checked the winners of Paris and the chances of Federer retaining his title looks slim: the last time anyone did was 40 years ago (Stan Smith) and in the last 10 years there have been 10 different winners.

I am sure that's going to absolutely crush Roger's hopes

It Must Be Love wrote: I am sure that's going to absolutely crush Roger's hopes

Probably not, a good performance such as a semi or final would be important but Shanghai is pivotal to his chances for Year End No.1 so he really needs to go....I hope he does!

No, I'm talking about Paris, not the ranking.

I was pointing out that I don't think the past winners of Paris, and the fact that no one has been able to win 2 years in a row, makes a big difference to Roger.
In-fact I don't think it matters at all, Federer will win if he win his matches- which he can.

It Must Be Love wrote:No, I'm talking about Paris, not the ranking.

I was pointing out that I don't think the past winners of Paris, and the fact that no one has been able to win 2 years in a row, makes a big difference to Roger.
In-fact I don't think it matters at all, Federer will win if he win his matches- which he can.

I see what you're saying, but there must be a reason why absolutely no player in the last 40 years have not been able to string together two consecutive wins there? After all, it's happened at nearly every other tournament on the ATP.

Lucius I see it about the same way as you see it. Points wise Novak is in the lead but Roger is the better indoor player traditionally, you said it was a 55-45 Djoko as favorite and I think I said 60-40 but would be comfortable with your handicapping of it as well. It is going to be a big deal who gets murray in their half and also in their WTF group.

bogbrush wrote:Thankfully he just likes playing tennis.

Could not agree more. On one hand it should not be surprising that a tennis player enjoys playing tennis. On the other hand, so many of them seem to get sick and tired of the grind, but he still seems to be genuinely enjoying himself. On the same topic, I found the following bit from Roger's press conference after his Wimbledon win interesting (boldface is mine):

http://www.wimbledon.com/en_GB/news/interviews/2012-07-08/201207091341829245807.html

RF: "It hasn't always been like this, the pressers. I think they've been somewhat easier for me since I was able to win here three years ago and since I was able to win in Paris. Things are much more easy now in the press room. They're at peace, even though I understand everyone wants to be the first to have mentioned it or said it first that, Okay, this is the decline.
I also said that I think this is just a temporary thing. That maybe down the stretch, like with Agassi I guess in some ways, you'll be happy that I'm still playing a few years from now. So I see it more as a steppingstone, a period I have to go through as well. That I'm, you know, going to win 90% of my matches throughout the year, it's impossible every single year. So you're always going to go through ups and downs."

Once again, maybe it is just me imagining things, but I sort of read it as Federer saying something like "I know I will not always be playing this well but I want to continue playing even when I am not at the very top, and hope that people will enjoy having me around even then".

I know for sure that I want him to continue playing as long as he is having fun. I am not in the camp of those who think that he should leave while near the top of his game.

For him, he should play while he enjoys it.

For us, I'd like to see him play as long as he can now and then turn it on. After wasting much of the front end of his career it's great if he's going to maximise the back end.

I hope he does even after he eventually drops down the rankings. I think it is great when players continue playing for the love of the game. Although Hewitt has clearly not had anything like the career Federer has, I love that he is still there playing on and enjoying it.

Yeah, I totally agree about Hewitt. In fact generally those players raise questions over "era" judgements. For instance, Laver & Rosewalls performances when c40 against Connors etc, Connors himself against Lendl etc., Agassi, and so on.

The thing I take from those examples is that it's the technology that makes players look better than their predecessors as when those veterans get hold of it they compete.

Your main point though is about love of the game, and it says it all about a former champion that he still wants to go out there when he knows he can't win events. Hewitt has it and it looks like Federer will too. I never thought Pete Samras had it, and it turned out that way.

http://www.thetennisspace.com/opinion/what-now-for-wounded-exhausted-roger-federer/

(Ignore that, I see it's already been posted )