300 : The Coronation is done

First topic message reminder :

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

I suspect Federer already holds the record for number of records.

He has had an extraordinary career - to be #1 in the world for getting on for 6 years, and with all the streaks from Slam performances (the active QF streak, the 24 (?) semi finals in a row and streaks of 10 and 8 finals). Perhaps though the most amazing fact is that he hasn't missed a slam tournament for 13 years, in an era where players are putting ever more intense demands on their bodies.

Someone will eventually surpass even these records, but I don't think it will be anyone near the top of the game at the moment, and indeed I expect the #1 record to last for decades. Having said that, I doubt anyone thought Sampras's #1 record would only last about 10 years.

reckoner wrote:Murray, surely.

I thought all you Murray fan's think it's Murray's head that holds him back and all that rolling about in agony on the court was because he was just a little sensitive?

JuliusHMarx wrote:

hawkeye wrote:lydian

What a great quote from Federer. It is fun hitting tennis balls. Great to know he still enjoys it at that basic level. I remember when Roddick retired he said he would still continue to have fun hitting tennis balls it was the other stuff that he would no longer do.

bogbrush

There is one player that has all the credentials to match Federer's 300 or 300+ and Federer's 17 or 17+ but where Federer has been blessed with his physical health the other player has been less fortunate.

You mean he made an error in judgement by developing a style of play his body could not sustain long enough to match Federer? Still at least he was more fortunate than Federer in developing enough physically to win slams at a very young age.

JHM, there's a few things I dont agree with in that.

Its actually a common misunderstanding about Nadal. Its not his style of play that's caused the injuries but his foot condition that he's always had. In correcting the foot condition, his adjusted footwear made his legs change alignment to his feet placing strain on his knees. He and his team always knew his career would be on borrowed time once they corrected the problem. He almost retired in 2005 because of it but they found this radical solution. He could barely stand/run properly to start with such was the adjustment needed. However, since 2005 he's lost a whole year and a half due to the foot/knee issues created as a consequence - imagine the career he would have had without the congenital foot issue. Also, what other injuries has he had besides besides the knees considering his "style"...nothing much I'm aware of, and certainly no problems with his ankles or groin.

Have you seen juniors play the game from 6 to 12-13...they dont really choose a style of play. It comes naturally to them based on the technique they levitate to, their mental make-up (innate level of aggressive vs defence) and role models they aspire to. Federer was brought up on clay yet look at the style he plays...Murray was brought up on fast courts yet look at the style he chooses.

You think physicality is the reason why Nadal won slams young and Federer didnt? Federer's record against fast court players wasnt great pre-2003 when courts were quicker. Did faster courts back then need greater physicality from him? Also, Nadal showed his obvious ability on a pretty fast HC (Miami) from the age of 17 when he beat Federer. Too much is constantly pinned on his style/physicality IMO - the guy was also ridiculously talented.

lydian, do you know when the congential foot issue first became public knowledge?

I think what really made the difference between Federer and Nadal at young ages was the latter was a fully formed professional and the former was a bit of an idiot.

I'm assuming hawkeye menas Rafa, and not Djokovic, who, had he found the solution to his allergies in 2007 could have replaced Fed as No 1 instead of Rafa.
Unless she menas Del Potro who was on his way to No 1 and multiple slams before his injury, which allowed Rafa to take the 2010 USO.
Etc etc.
I'm not denying Rafa's talent, I just prefer not to make assumptions and present them as fait accompli.

Foot issues have been out in the open since 2004.

This article is April 2004 about him fracturing his foot: Foot injury puts Nadal out of action

He then had further issues with the feet in 2005. At the end of 2005 he was diagnosed with a rare congenital foot problem - told his career was over. His foot problems were due to a deformed tarsal scaphoid on the top of his left foot. He missed several months of play, and was only cleared to resume his career by adjusting to specially calibrated shoes that minimized the stress to the bridge of his foot.

Another article chronicled the ongoing foot problems in Jan 2006: Foot injury delays Rafael Nadal's comeback

The whole story is also recanted here: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/sport/nadal-on-brink-of-oblivion-as-his-greatest-fear-arrives/story-e6frg7mf-1226452902007

Did he tell the world he had a congenital problem in 2005/6? No. But why would he announce that?

What do you mean by presenting fait a complis facts?

JuliusHMarx wrote:I'm assuming hawkeye menas Rafa, and not Djokovic, who, had he found the solution to his allergies in 2007 could have replaced Fed as No 1 instead of Rafa.
Unless she menas Del Potro who was on his way to No 1 and multiple slams before his injury, which allowed Rafa to take the 2010 USO.
Etc etc.
I'm not denying Rafa's talent, I just prefer not to make assumptions and present them as fait accompli.

I find it so hard to keep up with the reasons Djokovic hasn't been #1 forever; allergies, sabotage of his serve, mad relatives, sinister byes; it's amazing the poor guy has stayed in the game.

lydian, it's this statement "There is one player that has all the credentials to match Federer's 300 or 300+ and Federer's 17 or 17+ but where Federer has been blessed with his physical health the other player has been less fortunate."
The clear implication is that but for bad luck Rafa would have matched Federer. I disagree.

As for the foot problem causing the knee problem, it's interesting how many people watched Rafa's game for years, with no knowledge of his foot problem, and said "that style is no good for his knees, he needs to change of his knees will give out". Now that has happened, it's not unreasonable to conclude his style of play has contributed significantly to this.

Djokovic has been bullied his entire life for wearing 70's style hot pants back in Belgrade, also rumours of his parents having links with Serb Mafia were lies by Fed fanatics used to smear the holy grail of the 2011 GOAT.

Sarcasm see.

bogbrush wrote:I think what really made the difference between Federer and Nadal at young ages was the latter was a fully formed professional and the former was a bit of an idiot.

I've always thought that one of the reasons Nadal was so professional or so focused or so intent may have had something to do with Federer. As role models or targets go you can't get much better than Federer (obviously Nadal now for younger players). Nadal has always made it clear how much he admires Federer. Some dismiss this as media talk or even mind games but I believe it is genuine. Federer didn't have such a target until Nadal came along and it took him a little longer to recognise. He definitely does now! Would Federer still be playing with such intent now if not for Nadal. I'm not sure. I do think both players have benefited from having the other around. Well maybe not in terms of slam titles...

bogbrush wrote:I think what really made the difference between Federer and Nadal at young ages was the latter was a fully formed professional and the former was a bit of an idiot.

lol

Thanks JHM...yes we can never be categorical about the future. However, one can surmise or wonder "what if...".

Yes I can see how people might think that of Nadal but then again he's had injuries right from the start so they propagate the belief he's an injury waiting to happen. Had he not been oft-injured would they have thought the same thing for the future? Why do people not look at Novak's equally contortional game and say the same thing about his knees?

My point is that without the foot issue there's no reason why Rafa shouldn't have been relatively injury free like Djokovic has been despite his similarly gruelling career. The knees are incredibly strong joints, and when also supported by very strong leg muscles they are incredibly tough to break down. Djokovic has shown that without foot issues...Rafa was just born unlucky he had them. Otherwise he's been relatively injury free.

15 records open to Federer in next 2 years:

1. Most consecutive grandslam appearances: Federer has 52 consecutive, and is number 3 on the list behind Edberg who has 54, and Ferreira who leads with 56 consecutive grand slam appearances.

2. Total match wins at the French Open: Federer has 54 and is second place behind Vilas, who has 58 total French open wins. Although Nadal is only two match wins behind Federer at 52 wins, even if he wins the French Open next year Federer can take the top place if he reaches the final, or surpass Vilas and be tied with Nadal for most wins, if he loses in the Semis. This is assuming Nadal is healthy and even plays the French, of course. If Nadal retires early due to his recent knee complications, Federer could even hold this record over Nadal for good.

3. Most consecutive years appearing in at least one Grand Slam singles Final: At the moment Federer has reached at least one slam final for 10 straight years, and is number 3 on this list behind Lendl and Sampras who have 11 years with at least one grand slam final. Roger would only need two more decent years to break this record. Unless Lendl is inspired by his pupil, Andy Murray, and trains during the offseason only to lose a couple more slam finals.

4. Total match wins at Year End Championship: Federer and Lendl both share the top spot with 39 wins. Roger will obviously break this by the end of this season.

5. Winning percentage at Year End Championship: If Federer can get to at least the finals at the Year End Championship, he will pass Illie Nastase for the highest winning percentage at the tournament. Federer trails him now by 0.22 percent, for he has 84.78 percent, while Nastase has 85.00 percent.

6. Most Master series titles: Federer currently shares the top spot with Nadal at 21 titles. Unfortunately for Nadal, If Federer can win Shanghai or Paris he will break the tie and lead this important record before Nadal even has a chance to. FYI: Federer currrently is at the top of the list for most Master Series Finals reached.

7. Most weeks in top 3: Roger can break Jimmy Connors' record of 595 total weeks in the top 3 if he can stay within the top 3 for another 117 weeks. Its not going to be easy with Murray's breakthrough, but I wouldn't be surprised at if he broke this record.

8. Most years ending top 2: Federer currently shares this record with Connors. 8 times they have both ended the year either 1 or 2 in the world. Federer is almost guaranteed to break this record by the end of this season.

9. Titles on an outdoor court: Federer and Vilas both share the top spot of this record with 56 titles. Federer will most definitley break the tie and take this record for himself.

10. Consecutive years with one title: Federer shares the number 3 spot on this list with 12 years along with Becker, Edberg and Andy Roddick, but will most likely win a title each year he plays, so therefore if he plays for at least 2 more full seasons and enough of a third season to win a title, he will take the top spot of this particular record.

11. Most hard court Grand Slam match wins: Both Federer and Agassi have accumulated 127 Grand Slam wins on hardcourts. Fed will break this record after he wins the first round at the Aussie Open.

12: First player to reach $75,000,000 in prize money: Federer has accumulated $73,691,177 and therefore will definitely break this record very soon.

13: Most ATP 500 titles: Federer shares this record with Nadal and Sampras, but can break this tie and take the record if he wins Basel, or any other ATP 500 next year like Rotterdam.

14. Most ATP 250 titles: Federer currently has 20 ATP 250 titles which is the highest among active players, unless you include Lleyton Hewitt as an active player. If he can win 7 more he will break Thomas Muster's record of 26 ATP 250 titles.

15. Most weeks at Top 2: Federer already has the most consecutive weeks at top 2, but can accumulate the most weeks total in the top 2 if he can stay there for another 18 total weeks, for that would pass Lendl at 401 weeks. Take in consideration that the 6 weeks during the offseason DO count.

"unless you include Lleyton Hewitt as an active player"

harsh!

Lydian... excellent list.

One record that I would want to see Federer hold is the longest tenure in Top 10. If I am not mistaken, Rosewall has 12 years in Top 10.

An interesting selection !

Record no. 1 on the list certainly stands out as a measure of longevity, good health and the ability/fortune to remain injury-free ; although I do wonder what percentage of the Slams played by those higher up the list (ie Edberg and Ferreira) might have involved early exits ; it's one thing to actually play in one Slam after another, but going deep almost every time is quite another......

By way of addendum to item 3, (reaching at least one Slam Final for 10 straight years) Federer has also reached 10 consecutive Slam Finals in a streak from 2005 Wim-2007 USO. Closest to this in the Open era is Rafa with 5.

Nowhere is there more daylight between Federer and other players as in the remarkable SF & QF streaks : 23 straight SF's (Lendl, Djokovic next with 10) and 34 straight QF's (again, Lendl and Djoko are 'closest'with 14)

It's common knowledge - though pretty special nonetheless - that Federer has never retired from a competitive match once play has begun. I came across a fascinating stat associated with this, involving not Federer directly, but his opponents at Slam matches. It so happens that no opponent of Federer in any of the last 166 Slam matches contested by him has ever retired during the match. Just as intriguing as the stat itself (for me at least .... but then I don't always need a lot to be fascinated.... ) are the speculative explanations for this almost surreal record :

Worth a read here
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/gameon/post/2012/09/opponents-dont-retire-against-roger-federer/1#.UHkoqm_A-Sp

Actually lags, while you are correct that with10 consecutive finals Federer holds that record, in fact second best with 8 is...... Federer. And these two runs were separated by one semi. So 18 finals in 19.

I believe 3rd best is Lendl, 6.

Lags, surely matches against Federer are shorter and less physical, so less likely to create or aggravate injury, fatigue or cramp?

HB - I'm sure there's a lot of truth in that ; although the antithesis might be that his opponents are at times given much more of a run-around than they might suffer from many lesser players whilst chasing down a succession of testing balls all over the court.

Overall though, yes, his matches do tend to be relatively short affairs. In fact a comment made frequently by opponents over the years has been that the pace can be so quick and aggressive (when at his best) that the match is very often taken out of your hands almost before you know it ....

There has been a definite improvement in Murray's approach over the last 12 months.

His FH is now a weapon - nolonger the go to shot for other players to draw errors from. Very impressed with the controlled aggression from that wing. If he can groove this into a consistent habit, he's gonna be a tough man to beat.

And so the day arrives, as Federer becomes the first man to leave the 200 club behind and join just two women in the 300 lounge.

http://www.atpworldtour.com/News/Tennis/2012/10/Features/Federer-300-Weeks-No1-Tribute.aspx

Only 77 weeks to go to catch Graf!

I have a sneaking feeling Djokovic may be at the top (soon) for a very long time now BB. Of course the problem is he got there late and he has players like Murray, Nadal and of course Federer on his heels to blunt his time upon the throne. But I do think he could be there for around 200+.

Well for Djoko to do 200 would mean another, not necessarily consecutive, 150 weeks at the top - the equivalent of almost three years.
That would certainly be an achievement but Murray, for one, and possibly Nadal for another might dip into the number one position enough times to make 200 difficult.
Yes, Djoko should be able to put in a good run from fairly soon now into 2013. It could be that Fed won't ever be top again and would probably have to win another GS to do so. Mind you few would have expected him to start topping up the 285 figure, let along reach 300.
I certainly think Murray is capable of getting to numero uno.

lydian wrote:Only 77 weeks to go to catch Graf!

I have a sneaking feeling Djokovic may be at the top (soon) for a very long time now BB. Of course the problem is he got there late and he has players like Murray, Nadal and of course Federer on his heels to blunt his time upon the throne. But I do think he could be there for around 200+.

Don't get me started on WTA records! It's a different World and Fed never had the advantage of someone injuring Rafa at his peak otherwise he'd be over 400 weeks, have 3/4 career Slams and 2/3 Calendar Grand Slams.

Djokovic may get to around 200, it's possible, but he's made it this far into his career only getting a few dozen and a lot can happen.

phenomenal achievement. So pleased he made the magic 300 - who'd have thunk it this time last year?

Don't see Djokovic holding onto numero uno for ages lydian, nor do I see Murray or Rafa doing so but I do see the number one spot see sawing between, certainly Nadal and Djokovic. It's all just too brutal now and to hold on to the spot against fellow titans over the season is asking too much of anyone physically imo. The only way I see Novak doing so is if Nadal is out of the equation.

Yes it may be topsy-turvy for the next 3-4 years. But 4 years is 200 weeks...somebody will have to get the lion's share of them - cant see them being won evenly, it doesnt tend to work like that. I'd say Djoko gets 75% as he's strong on all surfaces, Nadal 15% from clay mainly before being caught up around USO, Murray 10%. That would give Djoko 150 weeks and he's already around 50.

Fair point BB...Seles was taken out at the top of her form. Martina's achievement is very impressive when you consider the opponents she had.

Yes I see what you mean lydian - I just wonder whether some of them will last another 4 years if 3 hour 3 setters become the norm, which seems likely.

Probably somewhat unlikely for Djokovic to challenge the record. He's leaving it a little late, but we will see.

Good point TP...the Djokovic/Murray/Nadal triumvarate looks likely to grind them all into the dirt. Even the 3 setter yesterday was nearly 3 and a half hours...inluding towelling off and whinges

Lydian - in fact in some previous years the number one HAS see-sawed between players. I thought it might happen this year but we've had, since Feb 04, great chunks of time spent at number one.
This has meant some good but not necessarily great players dipping into the top spot for short periods. Well, it's years since that happened and I can't see anyone outside the current top four making it anytime soon, even with Rafa possibly out of the equation.

Good observation SFP. It would be interesting stats-work to see how many years in recent times, e.g. post 1980, where 3-4 players have evenly split #1 between them in a calendar year...LF, where are you these days!!!

How about the returner has a ball in his pocket and on the mark of 20/25 seconds, he is allowed to seize the iniative and serve? Admittedly it would get into a bit of a grey area when they both serve at the same time.

Also, players breaking rackets. Maybe the punishment should be that you have to play the next one point after you break a racket with said racket. That'll learn em.

2003 was a three way battle in the second half of the season for year end no 1. Since then, it was generally decided by about the US Open each year. I'll dig up some 2003 data for you.

At the year end 2002, the ranking was

1Hewitt, Lleyton (AUS) 4,485
2Agassi, Andre (USA) 3,395
3Safin, Marat (RUS) 2,845
4Ferrero, Juan Carlos (ESP) 2,740
5Moya, Carlos (ESP) 2,630
6Federer, Roger (SUI) 2,590
7Novak, Jiri (CZE) 2,335
8Henman, Tim (GBR) 2,215
9Costa, Albert (ESP) 2,070
10Roddick, Andy (USA) 2,045

(to be continued)....

Oh dear, the ATP site is crashing a lot and it's time to get back to work. To continue this research, I suggest you go to the ATP rankings page and select the rankings for mid Febuary (post AO), mid June 2013 (factoring in Ferrero's FO win, whic puts him into the race), mid July 2013 (factoring in Federer's Wimbledon win, which puts him into the race), October 2013 (factoring in Roddick's slam win) and then also post here the rankings in November including before and after Paris and the world tour finals as it turned into a tight battle.

Of course, the tight battle between Rod and Fed for no 1 didnt stop Tim despatching them both in straights at Paris!

HB - that Paris win was the biggest of Tim's career. He beat some amazing players to win it, timing it perfectly to catch them after exhausting matches the day before. But then Paris has always been a bit strange in that sometimes top players give it a miss and at other times it catches them totally cream-crackered.

Good work HB...and "oh no" its the 2002/3 "era"

But hadnt Lleyton been #1 through much of 2002 (despite the more balanced ranking points)? http://www.tennis28.com/charts/Hewitt_rank.GIF

But good call on 2003....4 players had #1 ranking as displayed here:
http://www.tennis28.com/charts/2003Top10Rank.GIF

I find this site great for stats/data/past results, etc.

And look at that red line nudging up there

Henman Bill wrote:At the year end 2002, the ranking was

1Hewitt, Lleyton (AUS) 4,485
2Agassi, Andre (USA) 3,395
3Safin, Marat (RUS) 2,845
4Ferrero, Juan Carlos (ESP) 2,740
5Moya, Carlos (ESP) 2,630
6Federer, Roger (SUI) 2,590
7Novak, Jiri (CZE) 2,335
8Henman, Tim (GBR) 2,215
9Costa, Albert (ESP) 2,070
10Roddick, Andy (USA) 2,045

(to be continued)....

Obvious weak era, even the #1 had far less points than any of the top 4 today!

Crunch time in 2003 was Roddick's US HC series - winning Indianapolis, Canada/Cincinnati and USO in quick succession.

Roddick and Fed scored more heavily than Ferrero in the smaller tournaments, particularly Fed who picked up 5 wins; Ferrero had the best year in the slams and did similarly well to Roddick in the TMS tournaments (winning MC and Madrid). Fed was relatively poor in the TMS tournaments.

Roddick took what turned out to be the decisive lead in both the ATP Race and the 12-month ranking after his SF at Paris TMS (beaten by Henman).

Going into the TMC Roddick and Ferrero were close and Fed was a mile behind but just in reach mathematically. Roddick needed one win at the TMC to stay ahead of Fed, and Ferrero needed two wins to stay ahead of Fed.

The #1 was decided after the group stage - Roddick's 2 wins clinched it for him, Ferrero's 3 losses meant he was out of contention. Federer's 100% record at the TMC put him between Ferrero and Roddick.

Ferrero's win indoors at Madrid could have been the platform for him hanging on to the slender lead it produced for him, but he fell away badly after that, winning only one more match vs. Mahut at Paris and losing the last 6 matches of his season - to Jiri Novak at Paris, 3 at the TMC group stage, and 2 in the DC final.

Just for the record: Federer can extend his stay at #1 by getting at least to the semi-finals of Basel:

- he's currently 195 points ahead
- he will lose 500 points (Basel '11)
- Djokovic will lose 180 points (Basel '11)

If he manages to win Basel again (not a given, Murray is playing there as well!), he would extend his lead to 375 points.

Djokovic is defending 180 points in Paris and 200 points at the WTF (so 380 points vs. Fed's 2,500).

Even if Federer would win Basel-Paris-WTF again, which is highly unlikely, Djokovic needs only something like a QF showing in Paris and 2 wins at the WTF to retake #1...

The points come off in a lop-sided way this year . The 2011 Basel points come off on 05.11.12, a week after this year's Basel finishes, and the 2011 Paris and WTF points come off on 12.11.12, at the end of the WTF.

Therefore Fed seems to be pretty much guaranteed 2 more weeks at #1 whatever he does (22.10, 29.10), and if he makes the SF at Basel (180 points), he's guaranteed 3 more weeks at #1, i.e. 303 weeks in all.

According to the ATP Djoko's current race lead is 2,155 (11,410 plays 9,255).

Fed is playing for another 3,000 points (Basel 500, Paris 1,000, WTF 1,500)

Djoko is playing for another 2,500 points (Paris 1,000, WTF 1,500).

If Djoko gets another 850 points he's out of range whatever Fed does, but the reality is almost certainly that Fed is not going to win 15 matches in 3 weeks at the end of a season in which he's already played 73 matches - he's close to certain to fall short of the full 3,000.

Losing the final at Basel would see him drop 200 points, losing the final at Paris would be 400 points, and if Murray is in his WTF group he may lose another 200 points.

On that basis, I'm pretty sure that if Djoko makes the Paris SF (360 points), that would be enough, and the Paris SF plus one RR win at the WTF (200 points - 560 in total) would be almost impossible to answer for Fed.

I expect it to be done and dusted either before the WTF, or before the WTF group matches are over.

lydian wrote:Good observation SFP. It would be interesting stats-work to see how many years in recent times, e.g. post 1980, where 3-4 players have evenly split #1 between them in a calendar year...LF, where are you these days!!!

HB has admirably provided interesting data. There is some additional information here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ATP_number_1_ranked_singles_players

I can group these by weeks, if so desired.

barrystar wrote:The points come off in a lop-sided way this year . The 2011 Basel points come off on 05.11.12, a week after this year's Basel finishes, and the 2011 Paris and WTF points come off on 12.11.12, at the end of the WTF.

Therefore Fed seems to be pretty much guaranteed 2 more weeks at #1 whatever he does (22.10, 29.10), and if he makes the SF at Basel (180 points), he's guaranteed 3 more weeks at #1, i.e. 303 weeks in all.

According to the ATP Djoko's current race lead is 2,155 (11,410 plays 9,255).

Fed is playing for another 3,000 points (Basel 500, Paris 1,000, WTF 1,500)

Djoko is playing for another 2,500 points (Paris 1,000, WTF 1,500).

If Djoko gets another 850 points he's out of range whatever Fed does, but the reality is almost certainly that Fed is not going to win 15 matches in 3 weeks at the end of a season in which he's already played 73 matches - he's close to certain to fall short of the full 3,000.

Losing the final at Basel would see him drop 200 points, losing the final at Paris would be 400 points, and if Murray is in his WTF group he may lose another 200 points.

On that basis, I'm pretty sure that if Djoko makes the Paris SF (360 points), that would be enough, and the Paris SF plus one RR win at the WTF (200 points - 560 in total) would be almost impossible to answer for Fed.

I expect it to be done and dusted either before the WTF, or before the WTF group matches are over.

Great analysis Barry, fed has done a wonderful job of being in this position and even making it such a fight for Djoko to get the number #1. Last year fed benefitted in the indoor season to some extent by being the fittest, healthiest, and most focused of the big guys at the end of 2011. This year Novak is the one seems to be kicking to the finish thanks to better scheduling and some good luck in regards to injuries so far that he didn't have at the end of 2011. I mean considering how routinely Novak has been beating the lower ranked guys a semi berth and one round robin win in London should be plenty and that would put him out of reach even if Roger pretty much won everything he entered. Although I will say this without Novak in Basel and with murray probably not willing to kill himself to win Basel Roger should take Basel pretty easy so the first step in that march of victory is pretty routine.

I think it's reasonable to say (with Fed's record @ Basel) that he's likely to win it, even if Murray is entering. However, as other posters have rightly pointed out, although that closes the gap to 1, 655, that's still a big gap. Now a good performance in Paris can narrow the gap, but really, only winning it again would keep Fed in real contention (regardless of how well Djokovic does) but clearly if Djokovic does badly in Paris (as he often has) then Fed makes the semis or better, than it can reduce Djokovic's lead but I still think it would be difficult for Fed to overtake Djokovic in the battle for Y.E. No.1.

I think we'll have a better idea once Paris gets under way because we'll know if Fed wins Basel by then. But it's clear that if Fed doesn't win Basel, then he's pretty much out of the running. I still think it's a two horse race and Fed could still snatch the Year End No.1 but I put his chances at 30%, rising slightly to 35% if he wins Basel, and to 50% if he wins Paris. For Fed to stand a chance, he's got to cut Djokovic's lead to 1, 000 or less, because then Djokovic probably needs more than one or two wins @ the WTF.

lydian wrote:Good work HB...and "oh no" its the 2002/3 "era"

But hadnt Lleyton been #1 through much of 2002 (despite the more balanced ranking points)? http://www.tennis28.com/charts/Hewitt_rank.GIF

But good call on 2003....4 players had #1 ranking as displayed here:
http://www.tennis28.com/charts/2003Top10Rank.GIF

I find this site great for stats/data/past results, etc.

And look at that red line nudging up there

Right good job with that..saves me 30 minutes work (along with the Laverfan wikipedia article), so Hewitt led for much of the first half of the year, then Agassi for a decent chunk, then Ferrero, then Roddick took over in time to have a year end no 1.

barrystar wrote:Crunch time in 2003 was Roddick's US HC series - winning Indianapolis, Canada/Cincinnati and USO in quick succession.

Roddick and Fed scored more heavily than Ferrero in the smaller tournaments, particularly Fed who picked up 5 wins; Ferrero had the best year in the slams and did similarly well to Roddick in the TMS tournaments (winning MC and Madrid). Fed was relatively poor in the TMS tournaments.

Roddick took what turned out to be the decisive lead in both the ATP Race and the 12-month ranking after his SF at Paris TMS (beaten by Henman).

Going into the TMC Roddick and Ferrero were close and Fed was a mile behind but just in reach mathematically. Roddick needed one win at the TMC to stay ahead of Fed, and Ferrero needed two wins to stay ahead of Fed.

The #1 was decided after the group stage - Roddick's 2 wins clinched it for him, Ferrero's 3 losses meant he was out of contention. Federer's 100% record at the TMC put him between Ferrero and Roddick.

Ferrero's win indoors at Madrid could have been the platform for him hanging on to the slender lead it produced for him, but he fell away badly after that, winning only one more match vs. Mahut at Paris and losing the last 6 matches of his season - to Jiri Novak at Paris, 3 at the TMC group stage, and 2 in the DC final.

Is that from memory or just a well researched comment?

luciusmann wrote:I think it's reasonable to say (with Fed's record @ Basel) that he's likely to win it, even if Murray is entering. However, as other posters have rightly pointed out, although that closes the gap to 1, 655, that's still a big gap. Now a good performance in Paris can narrow the gap, but really, only winning it again would keep Fed in real contention (regardless of how well Djokovic does) but clearly if Djokovic does badly in Paris (as he often has) then Fed makes the semis or better, than it can reduce Djokovic's lead but I still think it would be difficult for Fed to overtake Djokovic in the battle for Y.E. No.1.

I think we'll have a better idea once Paris gets under way because we'll know if Fed wins Basel by then. But it's clear that if Fed doesn't win Basel, then he's pretty much out of the running. I still think it's a two horse race and Fed could still snatch the Year End No.1 but I put his chances at 30%, rising slightly to 35% if he wins Basel, and to 50% if he wins Paris. For Fed to stand a chance, he's got to cut Djokovic's lead to 1, 000 or less, because then Djokovic probably needs more than one or two wins @ the WTF.

Lucius Djoko has also won Paris before he didn't play well last year because he was hurt. Fed needs basically to win everything and someone to upset Djokovic early. But I don't know unless you get a hot serving Raonic maybe in Novak's draw I can't see that happening. The guy has manhandled the players outside the top 4 better than anyone that is the main reason he will be number 1. Outside of quarter final on Ian Tiriac's dodgey clay court Novak hasn't been out before the semis in any tournament this year. He now has been to 8 straight semis. It isn't impossible one of the lower ranked guys beating afterall it is a masters event. However I think it is a very, very hopeful longshot.

Henman Bill wrote:

barrystar wrote:Crunch time in 2003 was Roddick's US HC series - winning Indianapolis, Canada/Cincinnati and USO in quick succession.

Roddick and Fed scored more heavily than Ferrero in the smaller tournaments, particularly Fed who picked up 5 wins; Ferrero had the best year in the slams and did similarly well to Roddick in the TMS tournaments (winning MC and Madrid). Fed was relatively poor in the TMS tournaments.

Roddick took what turned out to be the decisive lead in both the ATP Race and the 12-month ranking after his SF at Paris TMS (beaten by Henman).

Going into the TMC Roddick and Ferrero were close and Fed was a mile behind but just in reach mathematically. Roddick needed one win at the TMC to stay ahead of Fed, and Ferrero needed two wins to stay ahead of Fed.

The #1 was decided after the group stage - Roddick's 2 wins clinched it for him, Ferrero's 3 losses meant he was out of contention. Federer's 100% record at the TMC put him between Ferrero and Roddick.

Ferrero's win indoors at Madrid could have been the platform for him hanging on to the slender lead it produced for him, but he fell away badly after that, winning only one more match vs. Mahut at Paris and losing the last 6 matches of his season - to Jiri Novak at Paris, 3 at the TMC group stage, and 2 in the DC final.

Is that from memory or just a well researched comment?

It's a bit of both - I remembered the overall thrust except I had not remembered that the Ferrero Madrid win put the cat amongst the pigeons once again after Roddick looked to have scored the decisive momentum swing in the US HC season. I remembered that JCF did really well in the big tournaments but tailed off, and that Fed had a somewhat up and down year in the larger tournaments but won lots of smaller ones. The details of dates and numbers I had not remembered and quickly looked up to put flesh on the bones.

luciusmann wrote:I think it's reasonable to say (with Fed's record @ Basel) that he's likely to win it, even if Murray is entering. However, as other posters have rightly pointed out, although that closes the gap to 1, 655, that's still a big gap. Now a good performance in Paris can narrow the gap, but really, only winning it again would keep Fed in real contention (regardless of how well Djokovic does) but clearly if Djokovic does badly in Paris (as he often has) then Fed makes the semis or better, than it can reduce Djokovic's lead but I still think it would be difficult for Fed to overtake Djokovic in the battle for Y.E. No.1.

I think we'll have a better idea once Paris gets under way because we'll know if Fed wins Basel by then. But it's clear that if Fed doesn't win Basel, then he's pretty much out of the running. I still think it's a two horse race and Fed could still snatch the Year End No.1 but I put his chances at 30%, rising slightly to 35% if he wins Basel, and to 50% if he wins Paris. For Fed to stand a chance, he's got to cut Djokovic's lead to 1, 000 or less, because then Djokovic probably needs more than one or two wins @ the WTF.

I agree that Fed's got to win Basel, but even if he does his chances are super slim.

If Djoko makes the Paris SF and wins 2 RR matches at the WTF he has 760 points without having to beat Murray - that is very very likely on current form. Such a sequence would require 31-yr-old Fed to win every single match he plays over the next 3 weeks (15) including in all probability needing to beat Murray and/or Djokovic between 4 and 6 times - i.e. assuming they make their seedings the best case scenario is that Murray is in Djoko's half for Paris and in Djoko's group for WTF.

Of course, Djoko could make it absolutely sure by winning Paris for a second time or making the Paris final (even losing to Fed) and winning 2 RR matches at the WTF.

2012 feels very different for Fed to 2010 and 2011. In those years he was hungry with lots to prove and came to his best surface fresh with not many matches under his belt by comparison. This year he's already played 73 matches, he's a year older, and he's had a far more gruelling year to date.