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?

Connors and McEnroe were also lucky Borg retired, Sampras was lucky Agassi went AWOL, Lendl was lucky Connors got old and Mac burned out, Courier was lucky Pete took a bit of time to get his act together, Hewitt and Roddick were lucky it was a weak era, Rafa was lucky Novak 2.0 had yet to appear....

The more I think about, it's only Djokovic that's ever really deserved the No. 1 ranking.

sfp - I may well be wrong, but I think his need to reach the QF's applies only IF Novak goes to win the event itself..........

Otherwise I believe just one win will do for Federer...

Lags. Only reason I asked was that it had been said that one win would be enough whatever happens. I see poor old Stan W has got Fed again in his section of the draw. Talk about getting the short straw.

sirfredperry wrote:Lags. Only reason I asked was that it had been said that one win would be enough whatever happens. I see poor old Stan W has got Fed again in his section of the draw. Talk about getting the short straw.

Stan will win one day. Nobody beats Stanislas Wawrinka 17 times in a row.......

Well Stan did once chalk up a win against his doubles partner, so you never know ......

Whatever happens, it's always good to see Stan's lovely backhand !

Agreed on the BH.
Of course you would have the Fed fans saying Djokovic only got slam#1 due to Fed's mono...and that he was very lucky to have reached USO final in 2011 due to that wild slap shot that miraculously went in on MP. Maybe Djoko was lucky that Rafa was having internal issues last year, maybe he's lucky the egg chamber hasnt been deemed illegal by WADA, etc etc etc...

If Fed gets the 300 weeks he deserves them because at the end of the day he's amassed more points than anyone else over the past 12 months at that precise time. We cant live on the threshold of ifs, buts and maybes as JHM also remarks.

Love Stan. His game is so sparkly even Dimitrov tries to imitate it.

DIMITROV!

Yes, Stan did beat Fed once. Henman finally beat Sampras and also finally got one over his bete noire Hewitt. A-Rod managed his second win in his last year against Fed but I think there are still some fairly ghastly Fed head-to-heads (12-0, 13-0? ) for some players. Wonder what the worst-ever head to head is ? The Fed-Roddick must be a contender.

Some of Federer's:

Mikhail Youzhny 14–0
David Ferrer 13–0

The Youzhny ratio might be the worst overall percentage-wise amongst current players.

Credit (if that's the word...!) to Youzhny for an entertaining cry for help from the Royal Box whilst struggling in vain to prevent what proved to be number 14 at this year's Wimby

Apart from the overall h2h's there have also been some notable 'streaks' - not least the one vs Hewitt who IIRC had endured 15 losses in a row before a shock victory at Halle 2010

I would think Rafa might also be building up some good runs although in fairness he has not been on the tour for nearly as long.

David Ferrer 13–0

So basically he's a mug player as some Nadal fans would say. Wait...

One comment on the Djokovic if-only injury points......

If only Djokovic had been able to sustain the physical load he gave his body to amass the points he had through the year. Maybe the reality is that one way or another - either by losing earlier or faster, or by breaking down - his body achieved what it was capable of.
I know this was a topic of conversation during the 3rd quarter of 2011; the sense that he couldn't keep up playing endless matches and making the final of every event - something was bound to give.

In which case there never was an "if only" to argue about.

Only thing you can say about being on the wrong end of the ghastly head-to-heads is that you're at least playing well enough to keep meeting the top players.

bb - your thoughts provide yet another illustration of what we (well... most of us ...!!) have always recognised : i.e. when all said & done, the points table doesn't lie, it is based exclusively on results on court. Fact rather than speculation.

We sometimes hear the phrase 'rightful number one' or 'true number one' by way of implication that certain players who have made the top spot are not deserving of the title. But if a player makes Number One even for just a single week (as I believe some in the past have done) then that player was the 'rightful' number one for that particular week. Of course, there will then be perfectly rational assessment and healthy debate as to how their overall tournament record and career achievements compare to other Number Ones. But that's a different matter.

One can easily put a spin on events in a fruitless attempt to prove that it all would have been so different IF player X or Y had not been either injured or below par, or if the clay had been a different colour etc etc. But once you go down that road, all logic must be suspended, simply because - as mentioned earlier by myself and others - it's a line of argument based entirely on what might have happened as distinct from what did happen.

Funny enough SFP when Federer fans were optimistic about his losing streak on clay to Nadal they would say 'there;s no good getting beat all the time Federer should retire' then Djokovic started doing same to Nadal and his fans.... (you know the drill)

Lags, it is NOT Nrewritting history it is simply stating undeniable fact. Did you guys miss the match that he was carried off the court in tears, is he just doing his best shakespeare in the park impression? Did you not watch his play after that match go into a tailspin as he tried his best to finish the season?

It is a great accomplishment for federer to be #1, that is why I didn't make this argument for a long time. But when other posters keep knocking Novak for losing the #1 to a 31 year old well after reading that by a few fed fans I decided to tell the truth as opposed to show additional sportsmanship when none is reciprocated. The fact remains after injury anyone who wasn't willfully blind could see that Novak wasn't the same player. If he was no chance Roger wins everything in the indoors that year.

I didn't make this argument but when people try to rub your nose in something with comments like losing the #1 to an oldy, don't expect the otherside not to come back and simply give an accurate portrayal of what actually happened.

What actually did happen is that as great as Roger is and with winning wimbeldon which is a huge accomplishment on its own, when it comes to the #1 ranking he got a bit fortunate. Which frankly has been the case with injuries throughout his career. Good for him and good for us as well. But Roger in 12 months basically outpointed a healthy Djokovic for 9 months and a hobbled Djokovic for the last 3. That isn't an opinion that isn't a hypothetical that is the fact. Or when we saw the guy hobble off the court in tears in the davis cup was that fiction or just my opinion?

socal - you're conflating two separate issues here, and that's what led to your misunderstanding :

a) the fact that Novak was carrying injuries to one degree or another (albeit not so serious as to stop him competing in a number of tournaments) towards the end of 2011
b) the matter of how many points he might have accumulated had he been operating at full fitness

a) is the the one issue on which you do have irrefutable knowledge (and which I don't seek to deny myself) in as much as he did have injuries. (as did Federer). But that's the only factor that can be termed 'undeniable'. It's very clear that as regards everything else - and most crucially the matter of how Novak might have performed had he been fully fit - you can offer absolutely nothing but conjecture and speculation. And speculation does not represent evidence.

Your purpose in calling Federer's run 'fortunate' is to somehow convince us that had Novak not been injury-affected, then he (ie. Novak) would have definitely won a sufficient number of points to have denied Fed the Number one spot. That of course is a possibility but it can never be any more than that.

You seem to lose track of the core issue by two separate and (in this case) irrelevant references to Novak being "carried off the court in tears." This tells us absolutely nothing about what might, or might not, have happened had he remained in better shape for the full 52 week cycle. It's perfectly possible that he may have gone no deeper at Basel, Paris and WTF than he actually did. As I noted in a previous post his performances there weren't that much better in 2010 either (just a couple of hundred points difference). Indeed, even if he had been fit, who can be sure that he would not have come up short there anyway, but more because of sheer fatigue, whether mental or physical ... ?? Certainly not me. Not you. And nobody else either !

You may wish to reflect once again on what precisely you're expecting us all to believe here : that Novak would have been guaranteed to prevent Federer from reclaiming Number One if only he had remained at full fitness throughout the 12 month spell.

And that, quite simply, is something you have no way of knowing and why I said you were engaging in a fruitless attempt to re-write history.

But feel free to speculate, it can be fun and we all enjoy a bit of conjecture and misty-eyed speculation from time to time ; and as the saying goes - they can't do you for it....!

And finally - you surely won't have to wait very long now for Novak to win back top dog status from the old man. That's my own bit of speculation for the day

Yeah, Novak only gave up the #1 because he was injured at the tail end of 2011.

That's why he's only won 4 events in 2012.

Personally, I think that to put a big year together he plays a game his body can't maintain. That's why he broke down in 2011, why he hasn't broke down in 2012 (lost earlier more often), and why Federer hasn't been lucky at all; because his skill allows him to win massive numbers of matches within the capability of his body.

Easy when you think it through.

I agree. And I think those pulverising duels with Nadal mentally fried him to the extent that he doesn't want to push himself to those anaerobic-stress and sinew-straining degrees again because he knows what they cost him in the long-term. I know he's doing ok this year, clearly, but he doesn't push himself to the same extent anymore...and Nadal coming back at him fazed him to a degree that knocked the wind out of his sails for Wimb and Olympics. It'll be interesting to see these 2 guys play again and whether they end up going 5-6 hours again...I suspect not.

So we still don't know if Federer needs one win or two.

Barrystar said one, but the ATP site says two. Presumably the ATP site is right, maybe one of those annoying countables issues missed by Barrystar, or Davis CUp points changing.

I'm not sure Federer will be at his best in Shanghai. Apparently there is a lot of backstage security around him because of that crazy internet threat. Also he's travelled without Mirka and the twins (because of the threat). He will not be able to follow his usual routine and it all will be stressful and lacking in fun.

"It will be very difficult to finish the year as number one," Murray said. "I think Novak is too far off and guaranteed that." Source: BBC website.

If Federer reads this today, he might be fired up! Guaranteed indeed! Still much to play for.

Djokovic takes a 1,500 points lead with 3,500 points available at Shanghai, Paris and London, plus Federer is playing Basle. Hardly guaranteed Andy!

No, he's saying Novak has guaranteed the fact Andy can't get to number 1 this year (as he is so far ahead in the 'race rankings' for 2012).
He's not saying Novak has guaranteed year end number 1 I don't think.

Lags, do you believe that a player, any player is better with or without a torn muscle in their back? I watched novak as we all did last year, after that Del Po match he was not the same player physically he was withdrawing again for matches he was losing to players who had not chance against a remotely healthy Djokovic.

Of course every player has some injuries at the end of the season. But a torn muscle in your back is a bit different than some niggles here or there. Federer was the player that had to step up and win the requisite points to be #1 an be in a position to capitalize. And of course that is a great accomplishment and wonderful. Because murray couldn't capitalize on it, neither could nadal who had his own injury issues. The one guy who won enough points to hop through that window afforded by Novak's injury was Roger, no one else did or could.

So do you honestly believe that Novak might have had just as bad an indoor season even if he didn't tear his back muscle? I mean does anyone believe that? Let me tell you I have a small tear in my hammy right now, no way I am as good right now as I was two weeks ago prior to my torn hamstring. No way if I was forced to play right now would I be able to play remotely as well. Are we to assume that the back muscle tear was not material to his play? Because sorry that is an assumption that seems contrafactual and illogical.

If Djokovic was fully fit throughout the year... his ranking may have been higher.
Probably, but we don't know for sure. We can't assume this is the case (I think that's what Lags is arguing).

Anyway we all know if Nadal was fully fit the only thing Novak would have a change of being number one in this winter is doing the Gangnam Style in front of a Chinese crowd.

Only kidding

Yes IMBL because Nadal has scorched a path of glorious victories through the indoor hardcourt season in the past.

Whether a fully fit Djoko could have prevented Fed reaching No 1 is unknowable. Fed might still have got there, thus affecting Djoko's confidence and causing him to lose early in the AO. Djoko was thus fortunate to have a torn muscle and an excuse handy to maintain his self-belief. You see - endless speculation.

Djoko's injury does not make Fed 'fortunate' to reach No 1 any more than Fed's age and Rafa's injury make it 'fortunate' that Djoko wll again get No 1.

socal1976 wrote:Yes IMBL because Nadal has scorched a path of glorious victories through the indoor hardcourt season in the past.

lol ikr

No seriously I do believe Nadal actually beat Djokovic in straight sets last time they played on indoor hard. OK Djokovic may have lost his contact lenses in the second set and was probably playing half blind, but his sight was OK in the first set which Nadal won 7-5.

IMBL as a Djoko fan I would be happy to play your man on indoors from here on out, I am not too worried about that prospect. Just being sarcastic though no worries.

socal1976 wrote:IMBL as a Djoko fan I would be happy to play your man on indoors from here on out, I am not too worried about that prospect. Just being sarcastic though no worries.

Indoor HC would definitely suit Djokovic more than Nadal, can't deny that.

Fans living through players? Oh dear, not very healthy.

Proposing "they" would be happy to play "your man" certainly sounds like it.

socal1976 wrote:Lags, do you believe that a player, any player is better with or without a torn muscle in their back? I watched novak as we all did last year, after that Del Po match he was not the same player physically he was withdrawing again for matches he was losing to players who had not chance against a remotely healthy Djokovic.

Of course every player has some injuries at the end of the season. But a torn muscle in your back is a bit different than some niggles here or there. Federer was the player that had to step up and win the requisite points to be #1 an be in a position to capitalize. And of course that is a great accomplishment and wonderful. Because murray couldn't capitalize on it, neither could nadal who had his own injury issues. The one guy who won enough points to hop through that window afforded by Novak's injury was Roger, no one else did or could.

So do you honestly believe that Novak might have had just as bad an indoor season even if he didn't tear his back muscle? I mean does anyone believe that? Let me tell you I have a small tear in my hammy right now, no way I am as good right now as I was two weeks ago prior to my torn hamstring. No way if I was forced to play right now would I be able to play remotely as well. Are we to assume that the back muscle tear was not material to his play? Because sorry that is an assumption that seems contrafactual and illogical.

Novak overachieved his potential in 2011; he enjoyed some injuries to Federer (at Wimbledon, where a back injury - ooh that sounds similar with Novak's!- prevented a grass court schooling like in 2012) and a slump in form from Nadal.

Good luck then, and pushed his body beyond capability. Sounds like he overachieved.

Raonic will be a longer number 1 than Djokovic. Truth hurts.

Josiah Maiestas wrote:Raonic will be a longer number 1 than Djokovic. Truth hurts.

JM - Well, that's a bold prediction. Djoko has got power to add and will probably be number one again fairly soon, while Raonic is not even top 10 yet. About another prediction? Raonic will never be number one.

Josiah Maiestas wrote:Raonic will be a longer number 1 than Djokovic. Truth hurts.

Well at 6' 5" as opposed to 6' 2" he will definitely be longer. All he has to do now is to get to number 1 and your prediction will be correct.

Interesting thing for Federer is that while he's almost certain to lose the #1 ranking soon, if he performs well from here to the WTF he has an good chance of recapruring the ranking after the Australian Open.

Gangnam style in Korean so not sure if the Chinese would appreciate it or not.

In the quote: "It will be very difficult to finish the year as number one," Murray said. "I think Novak is too far off and guaranteed that." Murray's last word "that" refers, gramatically, to "finish the year as number one". "That" refers to something previously mentioned and cannot refer to the idea of Novak finishing ahead of Murray since that hasn't been previously introduced as a concept.

sirfredperry wrote:

Josiah Maiestas wrote:Raonic will be a longer number 1 than Djokovic. Truth hurts.

JM - Well, that's a bold prediction. Djoko has got power to add and will probably be number one again fairly soon, while Raonic is not even top 10 yet. About another prediction? Raonic will never be number one.

#
Djokovic is losing hunger like Nadal had. The fact he's losing big matches to Murray, Federer and Nadal the last time he's played them says I am right.

Raonic will own top spot for at least 2 years.

Josiah Maiestas wrote:

sirfredperry wrote:

Josiah Maiestas wrote:Raonic will be a longer number 1 than Djokovic. Truth hurts.

JM - Well, that's a bold prediction. Djoko has got power to add and will probably be number one again fairly soon, while Raonic is not even top 10 yet. About another prediction? Raonic will never be number one.

#
Djokovic is losing hunger like Nadal had. The fact he's losing big matches to Murray, Federer and Nadal the last time he's played them says I am right.

Raonic will own top spot for at least 2 years.

socal – I'm convinced you’re still confusing things here, although I suspect that by posting again on the issue I will likely end up repeating myself in part. But here goes anyway !

One of your earlier posts (before I joined the thread in fact) began like this :

“….. Roger wouldn't have had a snowball's chance of being number 1 if both his main younger rivals didn't suffer serious injuries within the 52 week period that Roger attained the ranking.”

It is precisely this train of thought that has led you to make irrational and unsubstantiated assumptions based purely on retrospective speculation.

I shall try to explain.

(Rafa’s injury and unfortunate lay-off came post-Wimbledon, so too late to be a deciding factor either way, and I shall leave that to one side)

If Djokovic had remained injury-free for the indoors season, he might have performed better than he actually did. But he might not. Just because you have an opinion (an opinion shared by many, no doubt) that he would have performed better is not evidence in itself, nor does it make it either a fact or a certainty.

Perhaps a couple of specific examples citing actual happenings might help :

At Paris 2011 Novak made it to the QF’s but unfortunately was then forced to withdraw.

The fact that his withdrawal was down to injury is not at all in dispute – certainly not by me anyway.

And so a fully fit Novak would have surely done better in Paris…. Right ….? Well, no. Not necessarily. Perhaps he would, but perhaps he wouldn’t. There can be absolutely no certainty of either. In short, neither you nor I can know what might have happened and nor does anyone else ; although what we can all do is speculate of course.

In 2010 Novak came to Paris Bercy in great shape, and as defending champion was understandably very motivated to put on a good show. But he went out, to widespread surprise, in R16 after two long sets with Llodra. So, a fully-fit Novak went out earlier in 2010 than when forced to withdraw injured in 2011.

I’ve used Paris purely to illustrate what I mean by saying nothing is guaranteed : many, many times we have seen a player overcome injuries and pull through during a match, but (at the risk of stating the obvious) the same player can lose a match when fully fit. That’s sport, it's what helps maintain our interest.

The pivotal match in the tussle for the No.1 spot came of course not during the indoor season but at this year’s Wimbledon. Novak came to Wimby in good shape. He made serene, untroubled progress all the way to the SF’s for the loss of just a single set. He then came up against Federer. By contrast, Federer had been hampered by back injury in his match v Malisse (and was hardly at his best for much of his previous match vs Bennetteau).

I myself expected the younger and injury-free Novak to win the SF vs Federer. But that was mere speculation on my part. Actual events proved me wrong of course and the end of the tourney saw a change at the top of the rankings.

Fast forward to today and I’m in little doubt that the number one spot will change hands once again within the next few weeks – perhaps as soon as this week. But again, that’s speculation and there can be no guarantees. Federer could go out in R1 (well, R2 after byes) of every tourney between now and season-end ; and Novak could win everything. Or the complete opposite could happen. Neither of those extreme scenarios is very likely but that does not mean they cannot possibly occur. We can speculate on the future but in reality we just don’t know. Just as we cannot look back to the past and claim to know with absolute certainty what would have happened IF this or IF that .......

So what I’m saying, again, is that you cannot expect your opinions to necessarily be shared by everyone or to be accepted as fact.

One final point which I haven’t raised before now, because for me it’s separate in a way from the core issue : on the one hand you have attached great importance to the indoors season as regards its impact on the points swing ; but you then also say that if Djoko had been injury-free then “no chance Roger wins everything in the indoors that year”

Well..... it’s possible he might not have done but, as with your other assumptions, it’s no more than that : an assumption. And perhaps the fact that Federer did clean up indoors wasn’t a total shock, considering his past titles tally (a total of 20 titles to date, Novak has 5), giving him the best indoors record of any active player. A record which - many observers would think - was always going give him rather more than "a snowball's chance" , irrespective of how other players were performing.

Very true lags, and even then it assumes there was any element of bad luck in Novaks injury.

Other observers had predicted an injury would be the inevitable result of the run to Wimbledon, containing as it did a huge number of matches, with epics included, and so it came to pass.

Had he not worked so hard then he'd probably not have been injured, but then wouldn't have had so many points. Therefore, one way or another, that was pretty much what he was going to get.

Henman Bill wrote:So we still don't know if Federer needs one win or two.

Barrystar said one, but the ATP site says two. Presumably the ATP site is right, maybe one of those annoying countables issues missed by Barrystar, or Davis CUp points changing.

You would expect the ATP site to be right and me to be wrong.

I said Fed would be 1425 points ahead last week, which would make him 925 points ahead now, but in fact he is 835 points ahead. The mistake I made was adding on 90 points from Doha 2012 to take into account Tokyo's compulsory 0 from 2011 dropping out around now (on 01.10.2012 I thought). In fact Fed picked up another compulsory 0 from Tokyo through to October 2013 so he doesn't get the 90 from Doha. I don't know why that is because I thought that they had to play four 500's including one after the USO (he's scheduled to play Basel) and I thought the Olympics counted to the 4. I haven't checked the rules again to see what I missed, but the ATP should know better than me.

Anyway - two more matches to 300, let's see if he can do it. Somebody's bound to tell him, I wonder if he'll feel any pressure.

ps - I don't think I'm alone, I'm pretty sure that this website was saying the same thing http://live-tennis.eu/

barrystar wrote:

Henman Bill wrote:So we still don't know if Federer needs one win or two.

Barrystar said one, but the ATP site says two. Presumably the ATP site is right, maybe one of those annoying countables issues missed by Barrystar, or Davis CUp points changing.

You would expect the ATP site to be right and me to be wrong.

I said Fed would be 1425 points ahead last week, which would make him 925 points ahead now, but in fact he is 835 points ahead. The mistake I made was adding on 90 points from Doha 2013 to take into account Tokyo's compulsory 0 from 2011 dropping out around now (on 01.10.2012 I thought). In fact Fed picked up another compulsory 0 from Tokyo through to October 2013 so he doesn't get the 90 from Doha. I don't know why that is because I thought that they had to play four 500's including one after the USO (he's scheduled to play Basel) and I thought the Olympics counted to the 4. I haven't checked the rules again to see what I missed, but the ATP should know better than me.

Anyway - two more matches to 300, let's see if he can do it. Somebody's bound to tell him, I wonder if he'll feel any pressure.

ps - I don't think I'm alone, I'm pretty sure that this website was saying the same thing http://live-tennis.eu/

I assumed that the Olympics would count as a 500 level event, but based on the new rankings it is seems to be given the same status as the Davis Cup. So by this rule the ATP is saying it would rather the top players go to events like Washington or Hamburg than play the Olympics!

Djokovic should get a zero pointer if he doesn't play Basel/Valencia, but it won't effect his ranking (other than losing the 180 points from last year) because he doesn't have any other tournament to replace it.

barrystar wrote:

Henman Bill wrote:So we still don't know if Federer needs one win or two.

Barrystar said one, but the ATP site says two. Presumably the ATP site is right, maybe one of those annoying countables issues missed by Barrystar, or Davis CUp points changing.

You would expect the ATP site to be right and me to be wrong.

I said Fed would be 1425 points ahead last week, which would make him 925 points ahead now, but in fact he is 835 points ahead. The mistake I made was adding on 90 points from Doha 2013 to take into account Tokyo's compulsory 0 from 2011 dropping out around now (on 01.10.2012 I thought). In fact Fed picked up another compulsory 0 from Tokyo through to October 2013 so he doesn't get the 90 from Doha. I don't know why that is because I thought that they had to play four 500's including one after the USO (he's scheduled to play Basel) and I thought the Olympics counted to the 4. I haven't checked the rules again to see what I missed, but the ATP should know better than me.

Anyway - two more matches to 300, let's see if he can do it. Somebody's bound to tell him, I wonder if he'll feel any pressure.

ps - I don't think I'm alone, I'm pretty sure that this website was saying the same thing http://live-tennis.eu/

Barry you do a great job 90 points here or there who cares you still provided a pretty accurate portrayal of what went down. Nice to have a great points race this year. Djoko is favored but FEd has a track record of indoor dominance that Novak will have to contend with. Nice to have a points race this year like this one where it comes down to the final few tournies.

ATP ranking points system is stupidly complicated. It's no wonder that anyone can make a mistake.

The countables issue sucks.

Very long, but stunning and mouth watering post lags. If I retire, you can take my place. The best thing Federer can do right now is practise s+v in Shanghai and not be bothered of the result so he comes in fresh to defend his points in WTF (although it is strange how he lost to Davydenko in 09, then won the AO few months after, after winning WTF in 10 and 11, he didn't make the final of AO. Priorities?)

Just one more left then to get the cake out.

Stan the Man, proper player though.

Yeah but its like Tipsy/Troicki playing Djokovic, they know its against patriotic law to beat the Country#1!

Tipsy-Djokovic 2-5 (WTF 2011 and Madrid 2012) and Troicki-Djokovic 1-12 (Umag 2007).

Wawrinka-Federer 1-11 (MC 2009).

They do make exceptions to the patriotic law.