300 : The Coronation is done

Not the prequel to Gerald Butler and his gang of CGI-enhanced six-pack mates, but the run to the extraordinary achievement of spending 300 weeks as the #1 ranked tennis player.

It's certain that Federer will reach 299, and supporters of the Swiss maestro will be wary having seen him stall unexpectedly one week short of Pete Sampras's record in 2010, but he needs only a modest showing to secure 300 even assuming Djokovic cleans up China and Shanghai.

300 would matter because it would put clear water between his record and those of Connors, Lendl and Sampras. If we don't recognise the symbolic effect of these milestones then a lot of cricket folklore ceases to exist, and for Federer to become the first to raise his bat for a triple century is every bit as big as reaching similar uncharted territory in that sport.

It's especially impressive given he came back, at 31, in the face of the peaks of Nadal, Djokovic and Murray and proved over a rolling year to be the best out there. It's helped cement his legacy as the GOAT by dismissing the arguments that his reputation was built on weaker rivals; quite obviously were he at his physical peak he'd be an even greater threat today and would reasonably be expected to dominate.

So, without taking it for granted, I'm going to keep a close eye on the countdown to this historic record as he pushes the limits of tennis achievement even further out of the stratosphere. This is more than his supporters could have hoped, to be honest, but he seems to have believed he would do it. I wonder what else he has in mind?

bogbrush wrote:I wonder what else he has in mind?

Remember, 20 slams is doable is what Federer said. I would love to see him do it and I think he can.

Roger Federer has set himself the aim of winning at least 20 Grand Slam titles before he retires.

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/tennis/federer-targets-20-grand-slam-titles-before-retirement-2051139.html

However, Federer did admit that his body requires more attention than it used to: "Being a teenager is different to being 23, and being 23 is very different to say being 28. Today, I know my body better than ever. Some things take a little bit longer to recover from with age."

BTW, BB, I hope you remember this.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/cricket/england/3620145.stm

and also this...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Test_cricket_triple_centuries

Yes, 300 would be a great achievement and 237 in a row aint that bad, either.
I always thought during the period 2010-12 that it was more likely that Fed would win another Slam than get back to number one, with Wimbledon or the US the likely places he'd do it.
So it was a pleasant surprise to see Rog returning to numero uno. OK, it would be great if he could clinch the year-end number one but I think he'd rather win another slam.
As for his remaining goals, Rog possibly would like to see Rafa back to full fitness - just so he can try to even the head-to-head a bit. One of the pities of this year - and there have not been many - is that Rafa aint been around of late so that the rejuventated Fed and the newly-confident Murray could test themselves against him.

300 weeks - very likely.

20 slams - very unlikely. He has played surperbly for 12 months but it only yielded one slam. Let's say he goes even better next year and wins two more slams (which in itself would be a colossal achievement). That would still leave him needing to win a slam in his 33rd year. Even allowing for the freakish nature of his talent, I just can't see that happening.

Personally, I think even getting to 18 may be a stretch. Indian summers are shorter than the real summer!

Indeed, but meanwhile, back on topic the milestone approaches....

bogbrush wrote:Indeed, but meanwhile, back on topic the milestone approaches....

BB, you're a contradictory character!

On another thread you say that national boundaries are just imaginary constructs but, when it comes to numbers, boundaries like this are big milestones! Objectively it's an equally imaginary construct - it's not as if 300 is massively different to 299 in material terms!

I'm thinking that maybe you are numbers nerd or some sort of designer/engineer? Or maybe both?

I agree that a figure for weeks at #1 with a 3 at the beginning would establish true separation between Fed and Sampras/Connors/Lendl clustered between the 260's and 280's.

As pointed out elsewhere, the precise calculation is as follows:

(a) Fed will be 1425 points ahead on 01.10.12 because his 0 from Tokyo 2011 drops off and he gets to add 90 on from Doha, and 14.10.12 is the day on which he could reach 300 weeks at #1.

(b) Djoko is scheduled to play the China Open (500 pts) and Shanghai (1,000 pts), whose points get loaded on 07.10.12 and 14.10.12 respectively.

(c) Fed is scheduled to play Shanghai (1,000 pts).

(d) So, if Fed plays and wins his first match at Shanghai (2nd round - he has a bye for the 1st) that would add another 90 points increasing his lead to 1515 and he'd guarantee being #1 on 14.10.12 whatever Djoko does in the two tournaments.

(e) If Djoko is going to be #1 on 14.10.12 he needs the following three outcomes:
(i) he wins China Open
(ii) he wins Shanghai
(iii) Fed gives Shanghai a miss or plays and loses his first match

It would be a significant turn-up for Fed not to make the 300 weeks.

HM Murdoch wrote:

bogbrush wrote:Indeed, but meanwhile, back on topic the milestone approaches....

BB, you're a contradictory character!

On another thread you say that national boundaries are just imaginary constructs but, when it comes to numbers, boundaries like this are big milestones! Objectively it's an equally imaginary construct - it's not as if 300 is massively different to 299 in material terms!

I'm thinking that maybe you are numbers nerd or some sort of designer/engineer? Or maybe both?

No, it's not contradictary;

Countries are imaginary; I can prove that by pointing at the floor and noting the absence of a line or material change between the land.

Numbers are expressions of reality; 300 really is different from 299. I agree that it is only as different from 299 as that is from 298 and I recognise that point in my OP. It all comes down to having 10 digits on our figners and adopting the decimel counting system. That we humans take special note of changes triggered by the counting system is a fact and I am quite prepared to recognise the essential battiness of, whilst noting that passing such a mark has impact. 300 really does look different from 287 in a way that 299 doesn't.


And I'm not a design engineer! I'm very good with numbers but in practise I'm the biggest generalist I know.

He could give it a miss barry, stranger things have happened - but didn't he apologise for missing it last year and perhaps thereore would feel it important to show up?

Hope he does!

bogbrush wrote:He could give it a miss barry, stranger things have happened - but didn't he apologise for missing it last year and perhaps thereore would feel it important to show up?

Hope he does!

I'd be very surprised if he duffs them up again in Shanghai - he did miss them and apologise last year and when he does that he usually makes sure he's back. China is a hugely important (adoring) market for him and his sponsors, so he'll no doubt make a real effort. When you look at his schedule and past years for me it's Paris that is under threat of either a no-show or a relatively half-hearted effort given that it is in the middle of three weeks of tennis.

I agree, Fed has pulled out once or twice before, he owes them and he knows it. He also exited US Open at QF I believe so more rest time, and no long matches earlier in the tournament either.

I expect to see him in Shanghai. He might also want the points for the ranking, although he tends to deny that he thinks like that.

How about setting the record for most ATP Masters titles won? Currently tied on 21.

legendkillarV2 wrote:How about setting the record for most ATP Masters titles won? Currently tied on 21.

I don't think he'll ever hold that record for a reasonable length of time.

The Special Juan wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:How about setting the record for most ATP Masters titles won? Currently tied on 21.

I don't think he'll ever hold that record for a reasonable length of time.

Why not? He is tied with Nadal and by all accounts if rumours a true and he gives up the hard stuff, I doubt he could maintain a demanding clay court game.

The Special Juan wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:How about setting the record for most ATP Masters titles won? Currently tied on 21.

I don't think he'll ever hold that record for a reasonable length of time.

Agreed, unless Nadal retires. Rafa is pretty much a banker for most of the clay ones.

Anyway, doesn't Lendl hold that record in equivalent level tournaments? Something like 24 I think.

legendkillarV2 wrote:

The Special Juan wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:How about setting the record for most ATP Masters titles won? Currently tied on 21.

I don't think he'll ever hold that record for a reasonable length of time.

Why not? He is tied with Nadal and by all accounts if rumours a true and he gives up the hard stuff, I doubt he could maintain a demanding clay court game.

It's a big "if" though and Nadal is guaranteed 2 a year on clay pretty much, and we don't know how much longer The Fed will continue.

This is a wild prediction, but I think Djokovic will end up with the most Masters titles.

300 weeks would be a great milestone - I hope TMF does it.

I see Fed is playing for Switzerland against Holland in Amsterdam in the DC today. It's on outdoor clay. Not sure if he gets any points for this or not. Interesting that he's playing at all.

Feel that if he'd gone further in New York he would not have made himself available. Anyone know the points situation?

bogbrush wrote:Anyway, doesn't Lendl hold that record in equivalent level tournaments? Something like 24 I think.

Nearly - it's 22 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennis_Masters_Series_records_and_statistics.

I think Fed is very keen on winning the WTF, and he's got to want to get the ye #1 this year, surely? He'll not have another chance like this. I can't imagine that he's particularly concerned about the Masters Series record - if Nadal can play top-level on clay for 2-4 more years he'll comfortably have another 5-8 from the clay anyway.

Lendl's advice to Murray is concentrate on the process and the results will come - I suspect all the top players have to think like that.

Masters series wins by year, starting from beginning of big 4 dominance of it:

2005: Federer 4, Nadal 4, Berdych 1
2006: Federer 4, Nadal 2, Roddick 1, Davydenko 1, Robredo 1
2007: Federer 2, Nadal 3, Murray 0, Djokovic 2, Nalbandian 2
2008: Federer 0, Nadal 3, Murray 2, Djokovic 2, Davydenko 1, Tsonga 1
2009: Federer 2, Nadal 3, Murray 2, Djokovic 1, Davydenko 1
2010: Federer 1, Nadal 3, Murray 2, Djokovic 0, Roddick 1, Sod 1, Ljubicic 1
2011: Federer 1, Nadal 1, Murray 2, Djokovic 5
2012: Federer 3, Nadal 2, Murray 0, Djokovic 2

Totals: Federer 21 (including 4 in 2004)
Nadal 21
Murray 8
Djokovic 12

Henman Bill wrote:Masters series wins by year, starting from beginning of big 4 dominance of it:

2005: Federer 4, Nadal 4, Berdych 1
2006: Federer 4, Nadal 2, Roddick 1, Davydenko 1, Robredo 1
2007: Federer 2, Nadal 3, Murray 0, Djokovic 2, Nalbandian 2
2008: Federer 0, Nadal 3, Murray 2, Djokovic 2, Davydenko 1, Tsonga 1
2009: Federer 2, Nadal 3, Murray 2, Djokovic 1, Davydenko 1
2010: Federer 1, Nadal 3, Murray 2, Djokovic 0, Roddick 1, Sod 1, Ljubicic 1
2011: Federer 1, Nadal 1, Murray 2, Djokovic 5
2012: Federer 3, Nadal 2, Murray 0, Djokovic 2

Totals: Federer 21 (including 4 in 2004)
Nadal 21
Murray 8
Djokovic 12

Fed had 3 in 2004 (IW, Hamburg, Canada) and 1 in 2002 (Hamburg).

Fed's split is 15/6 HC/Clay,
Nadal's split is 4/17 HC/Clay,
Djoko's split is 9/3 HC/Clay,
Murray's split is 8/0 HC/Clay.

Robredo 1

Did all the top 10 withdraw?

I think you'll find that was Hamburg and Fed/Nadal were shattered after their Rome Fina so didn't go.

Re my earlier post about Fed playing DC for Switzerland today, he's just won his opening match against de Bakker of Holland in straight sets.

barrystar wrote:

Henman Bill wrote:Masters series wins by year, starting from beginning of big 4 dominance of it:

2005: Federer 4, Nadal 4, Berdych 1
2006: Federer 4, Nadal 2, Roddick 1, Davydenko 1, Robredo 1
2007: Federer 2, Nadal 3, Murray 0, Djokovic 2, Nalbandian 2
2008: Federer 0, Nadal 3, Murray 2, Djokovic 2, Davydenko 1, Tsonga 1
2009: Federer 2, Nadal 3, Murray 2, Djokovic 1, Davydenko 1
2010: Federer 1, Nadal 3, Murray 2, Djokovic 0, Roddick 1, Sod 1, Ljubicic 1
2011: Federer 1, Nadal 1, Murray 2, Djokovic 5
2012: Federer 3, Nadal 2, Murray 0, Djokovic 2

Totals: Federer 21 (including 4 in 2004)
Nadal 21
Murray 8
Djokovic 12

Fed had 3 in 2004 (IW, Hamburg, Canada) and 1 in 2002 (Hamburg).

Fed's split is 15/6 HC/Clay,
Nadal's split is 4/17 HC/Clay,
Djoko's split is 9/3 HC/Clay,
Murray's split is 8/0 HC/Clay.

Fascinating

Without wishing to start an old one, it really is incredible to look at Nadals splits. Adding Slams to the equation we have;

Masters: 4/17 HC/Clay
Slams: 4/7 Non-Clay/Clay

Total: 8 Off Clay/24 Clay

It's surprising because for so long I've always thought he goes into these off-clay events as such a well established favourite or near favourite yet in all that time he's only actually won EIGHT of these high-tier events when not playing on clay. It's quite an attention grabbing fact.

Henman Bill wrote:Masters series wins by year, starting from beginning of big 4 dominance of it:

2005: Federer 4, Nadal 4, Berdych 1
2006: Federer 4, Nadal 2, Roddick 1, Davydenko 1, Robredo 1
2007: Federer 2, Nadal 3, Murray 0, Djokovic 2, Nalbandian 2
2008: Federer 0, Nadal 3, Murray 2, Djokovic 2, Davydenko 1, Tsonga 1
2009: Federer 2, Nadal 3, Murray 2, Djokovic 1, Davydenko 1
2010: Federer 1, Nadal 3, Murray 2, Djokovic 0, Roddick 1, Sod 1, Ljubicic 1
2011: Federer 1, Nadal 1, Murray 2, Djokovic 5
2012: Federer 3, Nadal 2, Murray 0, Djokovic 2

Totals: Federer 21 (including 4 in 2004)
Nadal 21
Murray 8
Djokovic 12

You can tell when the Golden Era began: Ivan Ljubicic got his one Masters just before he retired.

sirfredperry wrote:Re my earlier post about Fed playing DC for Switzerland today, he's just won his opening match against de Bakker of Holland in straight sets.

OMG - just seen Uzbekistan playing Kazakhstan https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b2i5ShKaASc

If Borat was a tennis player would he be Smasher Baron Cohen?

Fascinating

Without wishing to start an old one, it really is incredible to look at Nadals splits. Adding Slams to the equation we have;

Masters: 4/17 HC/Clay
Slams: 4/7 Non-Clay/Clay

Total: 8 Off Clay/24 Clay

It's surprising because for so long I've always thought he goes into these off-clay events as such a well established favourite or near favourite yet in all that time he's only actually won EIGHT of these high-tier events when not playing on clay. It's quite an attention grabbing fact.

Indeed it is. 75% of his titles on Clay.

You wonder what effect it will have on public perception on him when he retires as he will always be linked with Clay.

legendkillarV2 wrote:

Fascinating

Without wishing to start an old one, it really is incredible to look at Nadals splits. Adding Slams to the equation we have;

Masters: 4/17 HC/Clay
Slams: 4/7 Non-Clay/Clay

Total: 8 Off Clay/24 Clay

It's surprising because for so long I've always thought he goes into these off-clay events as such a well established favourite or near favourite yet in all that time he's only actually won EIGHT of these high-tier events when not playing on clay. It's quite an attention grabbing fact.

Indeed it is. 75% of his titles on Clay.

You wonder what effect it will have on public perception on him when he retires as he will always be linked with Clay.

I don't know, because I'm part of a group who think they know a few things about tennis yet my perception of his prospects at the start of every off-clay event just doesn't tally with him only winning 8 such events all career. The general public perception may be equally influenced.
It may also mean that much of his legacy away from clay lies in being the Kryptonite to Federer, and it also underpins the view that the h2h is about being (i) heavily skewed onto clay, and (ii) a perfect match-up rather than just being "better" - after all, if it were the latter then surely he'd have gained far more than just eight Masters/Slam wins away from the red stuff?

When you sit down and look at this he's nowhere near the balanced achiever of Federer or Djokovic, and as you say in the hypothetical Court of Greatness assessment it could be strong evidence against him.

Murray has nothing on clay of course, which in the fullness of time if not corrected could be a bit of a blot if he won so much elsewhere people began to critically examine his credientials as a potential "Big Name". It doesn't matter yet because he isn't in that category, but if he won a handful more Slams and a fair few Masters yet got nothing on Clay it'd be easy to imagine people saying "Yes, very good player, but.......".

I think Murray's credentials on Clay won't improve. Strange given he played in Spain and possibly the type of tennis that you would expect to succeed on that surface.

Yes Nadal could have such stats that would weigh heavily against him in a hyperthetical greatness court. The fact he still managed the Golden Career Slam is something that is not so easily dismissed. I mean jeez if Andy achieved that I would give up watching tennis!

legendkillarV2 wrote:I think Murray's credentials on Clay won't improve. Strange given he played in Spain and possibly the type of tennis that you would expect to succeed on that surface.

Yes Nadal could have such stats that would weigh heavily against him in a hyperthetical greatness court. The fact he still managed the Golden Career Slam is something that is not so easily dismissed. I mean jeez if Andy achieved that I would give up watching tennis!

Indeed. It's weird to pull that off yet do so by winning only eight events away from clay. Given that of the eight off-clay two came on Grass, his win totals on the most popular surface in the game is positively ordinary.

bogbrush wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:I think Murray's credentials on Clay won't improve. Strange given he played in Spain and possibly the type of tennis that you would expect to succeed on that surface.

Yes Nadal could have such stats that would weigh heavily against him in a hyperthetical greatness court. The fact he still managed the Golden Career Slam is something that is not so easily dismissed. I mean jeez if Andy achieved that I would give up watching tennis!

Indeed. It's weird to pull that off yet do so by winning only eight events away from clay. Given that of the eight off-clay two came on Grass, his win totals on the most popular surface in the game is positively ordinary.

The word "ordinary" is pretty relative - there aren't many HC specialists with a better record than this - take Safin for example.

2 HC slams, 2 finals
5 HC Masters, 6 finals
1 HC Olympic Gold
1 HC 500
1 HC 250
11

barrystar wrote:

bogbrush wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:I think Murray's credentials on Clay won't improve. Strange given he played in Spain and possibly the type of tennis that you would expect to succeed on that surface.

Yes Nadal could have such stats that would weigh heavily against him in a hyperthetical greatness court. The fact he still managed the Golden Career Slam is something that is not so easily dismissed. I mean jeez if Andy achieved that I would give up watching tennis!

Indeed. It's weird to pull that off yet do so by winning only eight events away from clay. Given that of the eight off-clay two came on Grass, his win totals on the most popular surface in the game is positively ordinary.

The word "ordinary" is pretty relative - there aren't many HC specialists with a better record than this - take Safin for example.

2 HC slams, 2 finals
5 HC Masters, 6 finals
1 HC Olympic Gold
1 HC 500
1 HC 250
11

Relative for an all-time great, of course.

If Federer could push somehow for the year end no.1 with a WTF title it would be a marvelous achivement, 300 is good but not something Fed would really be worried of rite now.

Worth bringing this back up, hopefully in preparation for a successful first match next week.

Well Fed had a qualifier or a WC in his first match so it could have been worse. Incidentally there's an interview with Fed on the main ATP website at the moment.
In it, Rog says it would be good to be year-end numero uno but he's achieved his plan of getting back to the top and getting another Slam. He says that if it was all about the number one he would have played this last week.
With Djoko winning today the Serb must be even firmer favourite for the year-end number one.

I'd say Novak's more than a favourite. It's pretty much a shoe-in, given the current respective points tally + those in the balance from now to season end.

Conceding his Number One ranking to an oldie after just 12 months cannot have been a good feeling for Novak and there's little doubt he'll be all guns blazing to reclaim it (and of course hang on to it) as a matter of some urgency

The Federer interview mentioned by sfp gives every indication that Fed himself not only accepts the odds as being massively against him ending the year as No. 1, but also that he is at ease with such a scenario.

Indeed; I doubt y/e was ever a firm objective. He'd take it if given but really doesn't need to compromise the next year chasing after something he doesn't need.

I suspect 300 matters to him. Here's hoping that is reflected in a good first match in Shanghai.

bogbrush wrote:I suspect 300 matters to him.

Yeah, I noticed you think 300 is very important. Obviously I am hoping he will get there, and it will be nice if he does, but I do not quite rate it so high. I am impressed that he was able to reclaim #1 spot this year but whether he stays at 299 or gets 300 is of relatively little consequence to me.

summerblues wrote:

bogbrush wrote:I suspect 300 matters to him.

Yeah, I noticed you think 300 is very important. Obviously I am hoping he will get there, and it will be nice if he does, but I do not quite rate it so high. I am impressed that he was able to reclaim #1 spot this year but whether he stays at 299 or gets 300 is of relatively little consequence to me.

As I said on the "300" thread, these things are a bit meaningless, but then again batsmen raise their bats at such points. I suspect, should he make it, you'd see quite a fuss on the ATP website, signifying that milestones do register with people.

I see it as the cherry on the top of the icing, no more.

Well I guess all that really matters to Federer is the fact that Pete's record of 286 stood out as something quite special (as indeed it was !!) and he must have been kicking himself ever since he fluffed the first opportunity to overtake it. With the rise of the (comparatively) youthful Rafa and Djoko, the general consensus was that the chance had gone forever. But now that he has actually made the key target of 287, a new figure of 300 would have a certain ring to it.

Pete's only significant remaining record - and a truly impressive one at that - is his six consecutive years as Y/E number one. It really is VERY hard to imagine that one being surpassed, let alone equalled. But of course we tend to think that about so many seemingly-unique achievements in the sporting world......

Fed himself already has another special record where the Number One ranking is concerned, as the only player past or present to have held the top spot for each week of three consecutive calendar years, during his halcyon period of 2005-07.

Federer can guarantee his place atop the South African Airways ATP Rankings by minimally reaching the Shanghai quarter-finals. Anything less, and Djokovic would overtake the Swiss by winning the Shanghai crown.

http://www.atpworldtour.com/News/Tennis/2012/10/41/Shanghai-No-1-Ranking-On-The-Line.aspx

The Special Juan wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:

The Special Juan wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:How about setting the record for most ATP Masters titles won? Currently tied on 21.

I don't think he'll ever hold that record for a reasonable length of time.

Why not? He is tied with Nadal and by all accounts if rumours a true and he gives up the hard stuff, I doubt he could maintain a demanding clay court game.

It's a big "if" though and Nadal is guaranteed 2 a year on clay pretty much, and we don't know how much longer The Fed will continue.

This is a wild prediction, but I think Djokovic will end up with the most Masters titles.

Yes I can't see fed finishing above Nadal in Masters titles but I also do't think Rafa will be racking them up like has in the past. Interesting Djoko is in the running with a shout I think he has 13 and he is good on clay and hardcourt so that helps his chances. Mostly likly Rafa will own that record and Djoko has a good chance if he maintains his current form for a while of getting to second place.

lags72 wrote:I'd say Novak's more than a favourite. It's pretty much a shoe-in, given the current respective points tally + those in the balance from now to season end.

Conceding his Number One ranking to an oldie after just 12 months cannot have been a good feeling for Novak and there's little doubt he'll be all guns blazing to reclaim it (and of course hang on to it) as a matter of some urgency

The Federer interview mentioned by sfp gives every indication that Fed himself not only accepts the odds as being massively against him ending the year as No. 1, but also that he is at ease with such a scenario.

Yes lets not forget that fed wouldn't have been number one again if Novak didn't tear a muscle in his back and basically hobble through the indoor season last year Roger wouldn't have over taken him and was also forutnate that Nadal went down recently. I think after what happened last year as he hobbled through the last 2 months while fed and murray racked up points that at some point he wouldn't lose the number one ranking for some weeks this year. However it did take one of his closest rivals, the oldest one to put on a great run in the indoors particularly of 2011 and of course in the great summer he had at wimby. Credit to fed at 31 he raised up and won wimby and did well at the olympics to earn what he got. But your post lacks a little context. During feds 52 week run both his younger rivals who were ahead of him in the rankings suffered major injuries.

both his younger rivals who were ahead of him in the rankings suffered major injuries.

Because Federer works harder in training!

Does Fed have to win one or two matches to get the 300 weeks? ATP site suggests he has to reach the q-f. Inconveniently, the up-to-date, year-so-far rankings aint been posted yet.

socal - you refer to my alleged lack of context but, in then adding context of your own, you make one of the most basic mistakes in retrospective analysis of sport : creating a totally fictitious scenario of what might have been/should have been/could have been.

You give credit to Federer on the one hand for impressively clawing his way back to Number One aged 31, whilst at the same time trying to convince us that he "wouldn’t have been number one again if Novak didn't tear a muscle in his back and basically hobble through the indoor season last year….."

The problem here is that this line of argument just won’t wash socal, simply because you have absolutely NO way of knowing what results (and hence points) Djoko would have achieved even if he had he not (as you put it) had to hobble through the indoor season. And nor does anyone else on the planet. You have resorted to speculation rather than fact. Your case would be thrown out of court on the first day of hearing.

And if we accept that Djoko was not at his best physically in the latter stages of 2011, there is still a big question mark as to how many more points he might, or might not, have achieved even if in perfect shape. In this respect it’s worth looking at how many points he did earn in those key tournaments won by Federer, specifically Basel, Paris and WTF London. Djoko’s total haul from those three events last year was 560 points. However….. in 2010 he only got 790 from the same three events. So, whatever injury he was nursing at the back end of 2011 had very little impact in the points race.

Moving into 2012 Djoko has been in good shape throughout – better than Federer in fact, who actually had debilitating injuries to overcome, forcing him to retire during a tournament (an unprecedented occurrence for Federer…?)

Now let’s look at Rafa, whose injuries - you tell us - have also helped Federer. Well, in 2011 Rafa was playing well, although at the end of the year there was talk of him carrying some sort of unspecified injury at the WTF (again…). But one might well wonder just how serious the injury was, given that after exiting London he went straight to more familiar clay in Spain and produced two very fine DC performances, winning both his singles in impressive fashion – not least a very long bruising battle with Delpo.

And then in 2012 Rafa was in good shape, cleaning up on clay and posting impressive W/L stats of 42-6, up to and including Wimbledon – remarkably similar to Federer’s as it happens, whose own ratio was 46-6 at the same stage. Clearly Rafa's current absence from the Tour, dating only from post-Wimbledon. can have had no had no impact whatever in Federer regaining Number One.

It’s worth remembering also that even when they were at full fitness in 2012, Federer did have the game to beat both Rafa and Djoko (Indian Wells, Wimbledon, Cincy)

The old mantra that the rankings table doesn’t lie remains as true as it ever was. Sure, there can be genuine cases of ‘false readings’ but these are rare and due to quite exceptional circumstances, such as the very long lay-off suffered by Del Potro.

There is little question in my mind that the Number One spot will almost certainly change hands once again before the end of the year. However let's hope that - as with the last change - it will happen because of results on court and not injury.

In summary socal, I really doubt that Novak would wish you to make any excuses on his behalf. And whilst a re-writing of history might suit your agenda, you should not expect others to swallow it.