The last of Federer at Number One ?

With Federer, sadly but understandably, pulling out of Paris, Djoko is back at number one - and for quite a few weeks at least.
Few can doubt that Rog has done wonderfully well to get back to numero uno and he did achieve it through his own efforts rather than anyone else screwing up. Remember, he got to the top in the last tournament in 2012 when all four of the top guys were playing.
But having, finally, overtaken Sampras record and also achieving the 300-week mark, Fed might never be number one again. We''ll have a better picture of the exact points situation after London next week, but it might be easier, say, for Murray to get to number one than Fed.
If Fed's never to be at the top again it's still been an amazing run and his record seems likely to stand for a good while. Although the way Sampras record went so quickly, nothing can be taken for granted.
Doubt Rog is gonna be too upset about losing the number one tag and will probably be aiming for at least one more GS next year as a kind of swan song.
So the questions remain. Can Fed get back to number one, can Murray get to number one, can Djoko put in a really good run at the top, can Rafa ever challenge at the very top (number one that is) again?

Fed remains No. 1 this week because his points from Basel last year don't drop off until next Monday.

Fed has had a pretty spectacular year with 6 tournaments including a slam and 3 TMS wins; but he is still well behind the steadily consistent Djoko, who has shown that he is capable of maintaining a standard of consistency over 12 months which is beyond Fed. In my view this has been a very impressive consolidating year for Djoko after last year's heroics and shows that he is capable of hanging onto the No. 1 and picking up slams for a while yet. He's achieved something that has been beyond Nadal.

The obvious threats to #1 are Nadal and Murray. The former is currently a completely unkown quantity, but may be a largely clay-based threat despite his professed intentions to the contrary; the latter has not yet demonstrated consistency, but is obviously working on that.

I think Fed will continue to win tournaments and beat the best on his best days; he remains a solid contender at Wimbledon (where his slice and serve are such great weapons), indoors, and at the faster TMS tournaments. To win the other slams I think a draw really needs to fall open for him - but he's one of the few in with a genuine chance.

I think we'll see a period of the current top 4 sharing the biggest prizes but Djoko being the most consistent in slams and the bigger tournaments overall. I think Fed is done at No. 1 unless he picks up the WTF and at the Aus Open 2013 the draw yawns open for him whilst Djoko disappoints at both tournaments as well as at the Paris TMS.

B'Star. Very good assessment, if you don't mind my saying. I must say I thought that when Rafa took over at number one in 08 that he was good enough, and crucially young enough, to put in a really long run at the top.
But it was not to be. Also thought that Djoko might have been top for longer at the first go, although he has considerable power to add now.
Who knows, that little run of Fed's taking it over the 300 mark may yet prove crucial in the final reckoning. To put it into perspective Djoko is gonna have to be top until around summer 2017 (when he'll be beyond 30) to equal the Fed record.
I'm more confident now than I was that Murray will able to get some weeks at the top - making it even harder for anyone to get close to Rog.

Federer for me still has 1 crack left in him to make no.1. The factors around him have changed. Djokovic certainly isn't at his 100% absolute best, Nadal is injured and it is uncertain what challenge he poses off Clay, Murray has yet to show any real dominance over a set period of time. Yes he has a lot points to defend London, Dubai and Indian Wells, but still there are massive gains in Australia and Miami. I think maybe he could nip at the most is another month.

I don't buy into the whole 'he needs a good draw' for me at Wimbledon he will the player to beat if one is to win there. There are tournaments I would favour him for, and most probably not.

It has been a fantastic year for Federer. As per barry accomplishments wise. I am sure that title haul was more than Fed fans ever hoped for. It is for the rest of the field to show greater consistency if Federer is to experience a similar slump in 2011.

LKV2 - It could be that Fed's big-haul points will come from a completely different set of tournaments in 2013. It's very much gaining on the swings what he loses on the roundabouts. Obvious big-gain tourney is the 2013 USO. He could actually win fewer matches and fewer tournaments yet gain almost as many points as 2011.
Slightly expanding this, will 2013 be the year that del Po finally gets into the very top positions? He's certainly on a good run at the moment, but one wonders if he'll have much puff left for London where the REALLY big points are to be won.

barrystar wrote:Fed remains No. 1 this week because his points from Basel last year don't drop off until next Monday.

Fed has had a pretty spectacular year with 6 tournaments including a slam and 3 TMS wins; but he is still well behind the steadily consistent Djoko, who has shown that he is capable of maintaining a standard of consistency over 12 months which is beyond Fed. In my view this has been a very impressive consolidating year for Djoko after last year's heroics and shows that he is capable of hanging onto the No. 1 and picking up slams for a while yet. He's achieved something that has been beyond Nadal.

The obvious threats to #1 are Nadal and Murray. The former is currently a completely unkown quantity, but may be a largely clay-based threat despite his professed intentions to the contrary; the latter has not yet demonstrated consistency, but is obviously working on that.

I think Fed will continue to win tournaments and beat the best on his best days; he remains a solid contender at Wimbledon (where his slice and serve are such great weapons), indoors, and at the faster TMS tournaments. To win the other slams I think a draw really needs to fall open for him - but he's one of the few in with a genuine chance.

I think we'll see a period of the current top 4 sharing the biggest prizes but Djoko being the most consistent in slams and the bigger tournaments overall. I think Fed is done at No. 1 unless he picks up the WTF and at the Aus Open 2013 the draw yawns open for him whilst Djoko disappoints at both tournaments as well as at the Paris TMS.

Smart analysis.

It may be looked back on as his Indian Summer. I hope that is still to come, but it might be.

He never looked much good in Basel, nor in Shanghai. He can hit heights but they are increasingly interspersed with ordinary.

Never mind, happens to them all in the end.

Federer is enjoying his last few months as professional ATP, there is no point for him to compete for no.1 ranking again and injury his body in the process.

I seriously see Murray's time has come, WTF and AO would be a great step forward for him to achieve his goal of becoming the no.1 player of the world.

2012 will be seen as a transition year for the new era, I guess both RF and RN will limit the amount of tournaments they play from here on and would rather compete on preferred tournament than the complete calendar to re-force an entry into number 1.

Muzza or No.1 in 2013. Go Muzza go.

Invis - Yes, I would agree that Djoko and Murray's 2013 could well be shaped by just how much and how well Fed and Rafa play.
Having said that, some of the recent seasons have ended with what looked like a pattern emerging only for the following 12 months to turn out slightly differently. The end of 08, the end of 10 and the end of 11 are cases in point, with first, Rafa, and then Djoko seemingly set to dominate (although Djoko has put in a commendable stint this year).
Don't spose there will be many reckoning that the year-end number one come December 2013 will be someone outside the top four. del Potty. praps?

Good article SirFred, Roger is an athletic and tennis freak and one thing that he has going for him is that he is smooth and elegant, and his body seems to not breakdown as much as other tennis greats of the past. He is a very young and healthy 31. In fact, federer's superior durability to his young rivals has been one key to his success and to his run to #1. He made most of his points at the indoors and tail of he season last year. At that point in the year Djoko was battling a torn back muscle, murray started the indoor season hot and then picked up a couple niggles by the end of the year, and Nadal as usual was beat up as well at the end of the year. Roger in the last 52 weeks has been healthy while his two youngest rivals Nadal and Djoko have had more injury issues.

This was crucial to Rog's rise to back to number 1 in 2009 as well, after the AO 09 Nadal was playing at a level that would make recapturing the number 1 from him seem out of reach. But then Nadal by mid season went down again.

Don't get me wrong, when the top guy goes down Federer still has to be at or near the absolute top to have that opportunity to cash in when his biggest rivals go down to injury. But throughout his career his legendary durability has been a big key to his success. Athletically I think this comes both from great genes and the uncanny ability to have in my mind the most efficient and fluid footwork and athletic grace I have ever seen in a tennis player. AT times he is smooth and unhurried that the ball seems to slow down for him, at least that is how it appears.

invisiblecoolers wrote:Federer is enjoying his last few months as professional ATP, there is no point for him to compete for no.1 ranking again and injury his body in the process.

I seriously see Murray's time has come, WTF and AO would be a great step forward for him to achieve his goal of becoming the no.1 player of the world.

2012 will be seen as a transition year for the new era, I guess both RF and RN will limit the amount of tournaments they play from here on and would rather compete on preferred tournament than the complete calendar to re-force an entry into number 1.

Muzza or No.1 in 2013. Go Muzza go.

I'd expect Fed to play a pretty standard schedule - all the slams, 6-7 of the TMS series (No MC, and then Shanghai & Paris in the balance), and probably 6 other tournaments (3 500's, 2 250's - Doha and Halle, and WTF if he qualifies), as well as at least one DC match. He has never played a particularly burdensome schedule, the burden for him is that he tends to get so far in the tournaments he does play. This year has been an odd one with the Olympics and the earlier ending than normal so it was difficult to plan in July/August and now in October/November. I expect next year's calendar to be a bit more sensible and Fed to play a more normal list of tournaments.

sirfredperry wrote:Invis - Yes, I would agree that Djoko and Murray's 2013 could well be shaped by just how much and how well Fed and Rafa play.
Having said that, some of the recent seasons have ended with what looked like a pattern emerging only for the following 12 months to turn out slightly differently. The end of 08, the end of 10 and the end of 11 are cases in point, with first, Rafa, and then Djoko seemingly set to dominate (although Djoko has put in a commendable stint this year).
Don't spose there will be many reckoning that the year-end number one come December 2013 will be someone outside the top four. del Potty. praps?

I wish Del Boy has a say in it, he deserve to be no.1, but like many say I believe too his body might not hold up for a complete season year after year.

barrystar wrote:

invisiblecoolers wrote:Federer is enjoying his last few months as professional ATP, there is no point for him to compete for no.1 ranking again and injury his body in the process.

I seriously see Murray's time has come, WTF and AO would be a great step forward for him to achieve his goal of becoming the no.1 player of the world.

2012 will be seen as a transition year for the new era, I guess both RF and RN will limit the amount of tournaments they play from here on and would rather compete on preferred tournament than the complete calendar to re-force an entry into number 1.

Muzza or No.1 in 2013. Go Muzza go.

I'd expect Fed to play a pretty standard schedule - all the slams, 6-7 of the TMS series (No MC, and then Shanghai & Paris in the balance), and probably 6 other tournaments (3 500's, 2 250's - Doha and Halle, and WTF if he qualifies), as well as at least one DC match. He has never played a particularly burdensome schedule, the burden for him is that he tends to get so far in the tournaments he does play. This year has been an odd one with the Olympics and the earlier ending than normal so it was difficult to plan in July/August and now in October/November. I expect next year's calendar to be a bit more sensible and Fed to play a more normal list of tournaments.

Barry, I guess last season and this season has taken a lot of toll on Fed's body, eventhough he played a great season he was mentally and physically exhausted, and its understandable that when people @25 struggle with the demand of tour not much can the 31 take. The worst part is Rafa looks a bit boiled too, so tat makes a more of a two way case for Djoko and Murray to fight for the rankings at the extreme top, I wish Del Po joins the list.

I think that another consistent year followed by a US Open victory could open the door for him again. I've seen nothing that indicates he can't still match the best, and while his consistency isn't quite there, he remains a horror draw at any tournament, on more or less any surface. Remember RG 2011? I think he could hit those heights again if he really gets motivated - and I think he may throw everything at RG 2013, particularly if Nadal is injured or wavering at that point in the year. Just a feeling I have, not really sure why?

Draws at the slams will be absolutely key. For example, if he's on Murray's side of the draw at RG and also avoids Del Potro, you wouldn't exactly bet against him making the final? Likewise if he gets Djokovic at Wimbledon, I'd fancy Fed to turn him over there. Alternatively, if he gets Nadal and Murray respectively at those tournaments, it could all go to pot.

I reckon Fed can do it, but it's going require a huge effort. Murray's ascent could actually help him in some ways. Either way...fascinating year coming up

I don't see the age as being that big of an issue for Fed either, like I said he is so durable and does such a good job of avoiding injury with his fluid game and movement. In my mind it isn't outside the scope of possibility that he could win another slam and regain the #1 ranking, although I think regaining the number 1 ranking would be a bit of a longhshot.

Well an RG win in 2013 would make Fed the first man in the Open Era to win all the Slams at least twice which is another nice little record to have.
Agree with B'star that this has been a strange year for planning schedules with the Olympics and the need to defend 3,000 points in the last three tourneys for Fed (at least 1,200 points have already gone down the plughole).
Certainly agree that 2013 offers Fed - and others - a more reasonable schedule.

sirfredperry wrote:Well an RG win in 2013 would make Fed the first man in the Open Era to win all the Slams at least twice which is another nice little record to have.
Agree with B'star that this has been a strange year for planning schedules with the Olympics and the need to defend 3,000 points in the last three tourneys for Fed (at least 1,200 points have already gone down the plughole).
Certainly agree that 2013 offers Fed - and others - a more reasonable schedule.

Yup SFP, winning RG would give Fed more satisfaction than rushing for no.1 again, age finally catches up with everybody and its has almost caught up with Fed, we can see he struggles to compete a full tournament [best of 5] if he has long 5 set matches back to back. The Legend in Fed is making him compete at the highest level inspite of nearing 32, that itself speaks volume of him.

Murray becoming new no.1 in 2013 would be great for tennis, coz he is already a very popular figure around the world, and in my view only behind Fed/Nadal at the moment, he becoming no.1 and dominating the sport will bring in a lot of new spectators for Tennis, that would be great.

I think what was important to Fed was passing Sampras' 285 weeks. He did that and has put a bit of space between them. Its not as if he limped there and broke it by a week or so. I for one did not think he will reach number one again when he dropped to 4 so the first 6/7 months of 2012 have been amazing. He did not seem to be playing too well during the US Open despite that amazing masters win in Cincy. He looked flat and this carried through into Shanghai/Basel. His focus was clearly not there so I am wondering whether there is some issue for that.

I think 3 tournaments back to back is ridiculous and I cannot understand why a break of a week could not be had between Paris and London.

He cannot expect to lead the pack as those days are gone. Its physically not possible. Even if he doesn't get to number one, being in the top or 3 is good enough and what is more important is winning tournaments i.e slams. So lets hope he can get another slam next year. I think Australia maybe a good chance as he will start the year rested and fresh...hopefully!

Well fedsfan the schedule is coming hard fast at the end of the season becase the players wanted a longer offseason. I think this was the player's idea to put paris right up next to the WTF so that they could extend the break between the WTF and Abu dabi/chennai/sydney tourneys. It works out great for most of the tour. For most of the top guys they are off all of Nov, Dec, and don't have to comeback till mid Jan.

Socal - Murray is talking about the schedule in The Times today. It seems that the O2 is poised to get the WTF (great initials!) for another three years.
Murray is saying that yes, the schedule this year is a bit crazy but it would be worse if the players had to traipse off half way across the world right at the end of the year.
Wonder what's going to happen in Paris this week if any of the already-qualified guys get into long matches. Are they going to risk London - and the big points on offer - for smaller glories at Bercy?

Cant see Roger getting #1 back again.
I think the Nadal and Djokovic 2011/12 blowouts gave him a good window to get the #1 back but cant see it happening again.

sirfredperry wrote:Socal - Murray is talking about the schedule in The Times today. It seems that the O2 is poised to get the WTF (great initials!) for another three years.
Murray is saying that yes, the schedule this year is a bit crazy but it would be worse if the players had to traipse off half way across the world right at the end of the year.
Wonder what's going to happen in Paris this week if any of the already-qualified guys get into long matches. Are they going to risk London - and the big points on offer - for smaller glories at Bercy?

That is why the paris tourney is in serious discussions with ATP for moving their position in the calendar to earlier in the year. I don't think any of the london qualifiers will kill themselves in Paris to win. If they go down a set I think they will subconsciously not play or fight as hard. Is Nole still in the tourney I just got to work and haven't checked?

socal, Novak's not played his 2R match yet, but as far as I know he hasn't withdrawn from the tournament or anything. I agree, will be very interesting to see how the guys who've already qualified perform if they slide a set down, and/or how they get on at the WTF afterwards.

lydian wrote:Cant see Roger getting #1 back again.
I think the Nadal and Djokovic 2011/12 blowouts gave him a good window to get the #1 back but cant see it happening again.

I see this written quite a lot and quite frankly it annoys the hell out of me.

What Nadal/Djokovic blow out?

As far as I'm aware Rafa played a full schedule in 2011, and Roger had already reached the number one spot by the time Rafa became limp after W 2012.
As for Djokovic, he's been playing more tennis than anyone during the last 2 years. His supposed back strain (or whatever it was) didn't stop him playing and in any case there was still every likelihood that Roger would have won all those tourneys at the back end of 2012 given his stellar indoor record.

It seems that whenever Roger achieves something incredible (again) all the people who wrote him off need to find excuses as to why it happened. Or do you actually think that the most successful player of all time is not capable of such achievements on his own merits?

This same rationale could just as easily be applied to Nadal and Djokovic. For example, Rafa only won three slams in 2010 and got to number one because the competition that year was rather lame. Roger went MIA following AUS (and a chest infection which caused him to miss his usual training block in feb-march), Novak still didn't have a serve for most of the year and Andy was still losing to minnows. Novak only dominated in 2011 because Rafa had a mental block against him as a result of the early encounters, Roger was unlucky not to beat him at the USO and Andy hardly played against him. See how ridiculous it sounds?

So quit looking for lame excuses. Roger got back the number one position because he was the best player in the world for a 12 month stretch, and he deserved it. I mean it's not like the guy scraped into that position on the back of a few fortuitous victories. He won something like 8 or 9 tourneys in that period including the WTF, four masters and Wimbledon.

Anyway, as for the future, well who knows? I'd never completely write him off, given how often he's proven the doubters wrong and then forced them to eat humble pie (however reluctantly). I don't think it matters to him anymore. He has the one last record that he was really gunning for. I wonder whether the motivation will remain to keep him dedicated. I think that's his biggest challenge. As far as his game is concerned, I think he could remain a top contender for at least another two years, he's just that talented.

We shall see. For me I appreciate the remaining opportunities to watch him play. Federer is unique in today's context. In fact he was unique right from the moment he became a force in the game, and many people have commented on this. He makes a physical game look beautiful, bridges the generations, a fusion of power, athleticism and skill.



emancipator

@emancipator - amen to that.

Thanks Barry

I feel better now that I've got that off my chest

I would respond, but don't want to upset you Eman

How have you been anyway?

emancipator wrote:Thanks Barry

I feel better now that I've got that off my chest

That was building up for a while huh! But now tell us how you really feel?

Hehe



emancipator - intergalactic tennis historian

lydian wrote:Cant see Roger getting #1 back again.
I think the Nadal and Djokovic 2011/12 blowouts gave him a good window to get the #1 back but cant see it happening again.

haaa thats an insult to Roger's achievement, Roger didn't achive no.1 coz of Nadal/Rafa blow out, coz he blew them off with his performance like he did in the past.

Very well put forward Emanci , couldn't have explained any better.

Federer got back to number 1 for one reason and one reason alone.... Over a 12 month period he was better than every other player in the world.

Same as slams, players win them because they deserve to. Rain, wind, indoors, MTO's, injuries.... I've heard all the excuses, but it doesn't matter. The guy who gets the 'W' is the guy who deserves it.

Danny_1982 wrote:Federer got back to number 1 for one reason and one reason alone.... Over a 12 month period he was better than every other player in the world.

Rankings are done on points accumulation.
The player who has accumulated the most points over the last 12 months is ranked number 1, and hence they deserve it, simple.
But that's it though, what interpretations we draw after that are subjective.

Danny_1982 wrote:The guy who gets the 'W' is the guy who deserves it.

Did you mean W as win or W as Wimbledon

invisiblecoolers wrote:

Danny_1982 wrote:The guy who gets the 'W' is the guy who deserves it.

Did you mean W as win or W as Wimbledon

Ha. I meant walkover. That's why I think Novak should be awarded the French Open in 2011.

emancipator wrote:I see this written quite a lot and quite frankly it annoys the hell out of me.

What Nadal/Djokovic blow out?

As far as I'm aware Rafa played a full schedule in 2011, and Roger had already reached the number one spot by the time Rafa became limp after W 2012.
As for Djokovic, he's been playing more tennis than anyone during the last 2 years. His supposed back strain (or whatever it was) didn't stop him playing and in any case there was still every likelihood that Roger would have won all those tourneys at the back end of 2012 given his stellar indoor record.

It seems that whenever Roger achieves something incredible (again) all the people who wrote him off need to find excuses as to why it happened. Or do you actually think that the most successful player of all time is not capable of such achievements on his own merits?

This same rationale could just as easily be applied to Nadal and Djokovic. For example, Rafa only won three slams in 2010 and got to number one because the competition that year was rather lame. Roger went MIA following AUS (and a chest infection which caused him to miss his usual training block in feb-march), Novak still didn't have a serve for most of the year and Andy was still losing to minnows. Novak only dominated in 2011 because Rafa had a mental block against him as a result of the early encounters, Roger was unlucky not to beat him at the USO and Andy hardly played against him. See how ridiculous it sounds?

So quit looking for lame excuses. Roger got back the number one position because he was the best player in the world for a 12 month stretch, and he deserved it. I mean it's not like the guy scraped into that position on the back of a few fortuitous victories. He won something like 8 or 9 tourneys in that period including the WTF, four masters and Wimbledon.

Anyway, as for the future, well who knows? I'd never completely write him off, given how often he's proven the doubters wrong and then forced them to eat humble pie (however reluctantly). I don't think it matters to him anymore. He has the one last record that he was really gunning for. I wonder whether the motivation will remain to keep him dedicated. I think that's his biggest challenge. As far as his game is concerned, I think he could remain a top contender for at least another two years, he's just that talented.

We shall see. For me I appreciate the remaining opportunities to watch him play. Federer is unique in today's context. In fact he was unique right from the moment he became a force in the game, and many people have commented on this. He makes a physical game look beautiful, bridges the generations, a fusion of power, athleticism and skill.



emancipator

I enjoyed reading that, thanks.

As for last remaining record, I think he might have an eye on an 8th Wimbledon, to put Pete and William Renshaw into 2nd place. Apart from that I don't think there's anything else worth talking about, he's got every other meaningful record that could fall within the scope of his game.

oh yes, WTF last year. the most clinical demolition job remembered by me...

i guess his critics will say he won only because it was indoors, as if the court is outdoors and in the midst of Hurricane Sandy for the guys on the otherside..

anyway its nirvana time for his fans.. the great moments when they come will be cherished all the more, knowing that the horrible moments will be more often.

having said that he did give Delpo a big fright the other day.

Federer remains the guy no one wants to meet in the draw today, because you never know which Federer turns up. the sublime one in Wimbledon 2012 to which even the heavens will pay a premium to watch, or the one who got soundly beaten Cincy (or was it Toronto?)

It wasn't Cincy. He gave Novak a bagel set in the final there.

coolpixel wrote:oh yes, WTF last year. the most clinical demolition job remembered by me...

i guess his critics will say he won only because it was indoors, as if the court is outdoors and in the midst of Hurricane Sandy for the guys on the otherside..

anyway its nirvana time for his fans.. the great moments when they come will be cherished all the more, knowing that the horrible moments will be more often.

having said that he did give Delpo a big fright the other day.

Federer remains the guy no one wants to meet in the draw today, because you never know which Federer turns up. the sublime one in Wimbledon 2012 to which even the heavens will pay a premium to watch, or the one who got soundly beaten Cincy (or was it Toronto?)

Agreed with most sayings but not the last sentence, he didn't appear in Toronto much to our frustrations and he bagel-ed Novak in the 1st set of Cincy for an utter demolition finals.

Danny_1982 Yesterday at 4:12 pm

Ha. I meant walkover. That's why I think Novak should be awarded the French Open in 2011.

Good one Danny

emancipator wrote:

lydian wrote:Cant see Roger getting #1 back again.
I think the Nadal and Djokovic 2011/12 blowouts gave him a good window to get the #1 back but cant see it happening again.

I see this written quite a lot and quite frankly it annoys the hell out of me.

What Nadal/Djokovic blow out?

As far as I'm aware Rafa played a full schedule in 2011, and Roger had already reached the number one spot by the time Rafa became limp after W 2012.
As for Djokovic, he's been playing more tennis than anyone during the last 2 years. His supposed back strain (or whatever it was) didn't stop him playing and in any case there was still every likelihood that Roger would have won all those tourneys at the back end of 2012 given his stellar indoor record.

It seems that whenever Roger achieves something incredible (again) all the people who wrote him off need to find excuses as to why it happened. Or do you actually think that the most successful player of all time is not capable of such achievements on his own merits?

This same rationale could just as easily be applied to Nadal and Djokovic. For example, Rafa only won three slams in 2010 and got to number one because the competition that year was rather lame. Roger went MIA following AUS (and a chest infection which caused him to miss his usual training block in feb-march), Novak still didn't have a serve for most of the year and Andy was still losing to minnows. Novak only dominated in 2011 because Rafa had a mental block against him as a result of the early encounters, Roger was unlucky not to beat him at the USO and Andy hardly played against him. See how ridiculous it sounds?

So quit looking for lame excuses. Roger got back the number one position because he was the best player in the world for a 12 month stretch, and he deserved it. I mean it's not like the guy scraped into that position on the back of a few fortuitous victories. He won something like 8 or 9 tourneys in that period including the WTF, four masters and Wimbledon.

Anyway, as for the future, well who knows? I'd never completely write him off, given how often he's proven the doubters wrong and then forced them to eat humble pie (however reluctantly). I don't think it matters to him anymore. He has the one last record that he was really gunning for. I wonder whether the motivation will remain to keep him dedicated. I think that's his biggest challenge. As far as his game is concerned, I think he could remain a top contender for at least another two years, he's just that talented.

We shall see. For me I appreciate the remaining opportunities to watch him play. Federer is unique in today's context. In fact he was unique right from the moment he became a force in the game, and many people have commented on this. He makes a physical game look beautiful, bridges the generations, a fusion of power, athleticism and skill.



emancipator

I agree, you've abandoned your customary fairness in your post Lydian imo - Fed was the most successful player in terms of tournaments won over the period from the end of the US Open 2011 until Cincinatti and therefore the rankings rewarded him appropriately. Djokovic has been the most consistent player over the last year and with Federer performing in a disappointing way from US onwards, the rankings now reflect that brilliant consistency.

I quite agree with emancipator that if you apply your argument to Fed, you must to Nadal's 2010 when quite frankly Novak did not have his act together, in fact he looked all over the place in the early part of the season, Murray was emotionally crushed by the AO defeat which took him a few months to get over and Fed did have a chest infection over the Spring period which prevented him training in the early part of that time. Should that take anything away from Nadal? Maybe we should just say he got his act together over this period when others didn't - ergo he was the best player of 2010?

Unbelievably grudging towards, to date, the most successful player in the modern game? For my part (and I agree with BB that when Fed is ordinary nowadays, he is very much so) I have enjoyed seeing some of vintage Fed this year playing some sublime tennis - I don't think he needs any excuses or apologies!

I guess we're all entitled to our opinion

I dont personally buy 2010 is analogous to 2012 as Nadal's 2 main rivals, Federer and Djokovic, were not burning each other out in 2010 leaving the #1 slot more open so to speak. My point about late 2011/2012 was that Federer's main 2 rivals were doing exactly that. Plus Federer didnt get an event he would normally be expected to win be turned into something completely alien to him. But the views are not meant as a sleight on Federer, for me its just the reality of what happened over the past 12-15 months, IMO.

Fed had a great USO 11 and was very unlucky to not get to the final.
But that final between Nadal and Djokovic effectively killed off the rest of their season...they went to the well once too often with that match - and after a brutal earlier part of 2011 too. From USO to WTF end they both barely scraped any point. Conversely Federer cleaned up the rest of the season...probably gaining more points between USO til end of WTF than he ever has before, winning 3 straight events in a row at the end. Coincidence?

Just as they recovered into 2012 Djoko/Nadal went to the well once again at AO12, leaving them both spent...again. But dont forget on the way to the final a recharged Nadal had despatched Federer fairly routinely...being the perennial thorn Nadal is in Fed's "slam side". But the brutally of the A012 final (and the accummulative run of the previous 6 months or so) left Nadal with a flared knee which led to him finally withdrawing at Miami. Fair enough some may say, thats the price of his gruelling game. But then again its the price of him and Djokovic dictating the finals of slams and Masters over the previous 12 months, when they both raised the bar of the game. As they went into the clay season the game again pretty much revolved around Nadal-Djokovic battles...Nadal overcoming Djokovic at MC (aided by Djokovic personal troubles), then at Rome.

Then we have the fast surface blue-smurf joke of slippery Teflon Madrid which completely unseated Nadal and Djokovic. Would Federer have won a "normal" clay event with Djokovic and Nadal in the draw (...like when does Nadal ever lose to Verdasco on real clay, and after 14 straight wins?) given the form they were both in up to that point and Djokovic beat him routinely at Rome afterwards? I dont believe so. But hey, thats what happened and he got 1000 pts...but had to still earn them of course!

The major final battle at Roland Garros...where Federer was again despatcehd pretty routinely en-route...between the top 2 resulted in a loss that Djokovic took badly. He was a shadow of himself at Wimb and Olympics. We know about Nadal from Wimb onwards - his knee finally stopping him from playing any further. Given Fed's H2H vs Nadal you have to feel not having Nadal around is always going to be generally better news for Federer. But, yes Federer cant help Nadal not being around. And its remarkable how he keeps himself injury-free, so kudos to him there.

Anyway, Djokovic started to come out of his slumber when he got back to HC and won Canada. But to be fair Federer played a blinder at ultra-fast Cincy in beating Djokovic in the final. Then I think Djokovic (and Berdych, who had beaten Federer...it seems to me Federer lost fairly routinely in nearly all slams of 2012 outside Wimbledon) was unlucky at USO with the high winds that threw him off his game...after all it made him lose a set to Ferrer 6-2 before he came back the next day to lower winds. I would have expected him to win the final otherwise...so he lost more points. Andy did play really well so I know Murray fans will completely disagree with me there but I just felt the wind knocked Djokovic off-track completely - his progress up to the windy matches had been utterly ruthless.

So...what does all this mean. Well its just my opinion that Federer had a few things come into alignment that allowed him to get more points than Djokovic to become #1 again, and for me a huge factor was the 2011/early 2012 burnout that resulted from the Djoko/Nadal battles. But that's not to say he didnt take his chances and played well in doing so. That he got to #1 again isnt of great import to me particularly, its great he got the #1 weeks record and probably deserves it for his career in general but I just believe that after USO11 to this USO he's had a run that is unlikely to happen again. I dont expect others to agree with my take on these events and fair enough, we all see things differently...but its all about opinion and debate!

Of course we are all entitled to our opinion, and I respect your right to hold it - I just think it is a little unfair!

Fair enough TP...he's still had a hell of a year whatever the ins and outs though. I, for one, have no idea how he is even in a positon to challenge for #1 after all the miles under his belt. I thought after 2009 he was going to be finished (slow decline...) but boy how I was proved wrong!

What's wrong about this is that #1 is a marathon not a sprint. Apart from Fed in 2004-2007 every player has ups and downs during the course of a season.

It seems to be that when considering #1 only Nadal's or Djoko's peaks are valid and proper, but not Fed's; nor is Fed given credit for the fact that when he (the older by 5 years) is off colour he still manages to turn up and play and score a few points.

During 2010 I agree that it wasn't a case of Djoko and Fed knocking lumps out of each other. Fed was imperious at the AO, but after that both he and Djoko (and Murray if truth be told) had lousy mid-seasons by their standards for various reasons and provided no challenge at all to Nadal until the latter half of the year when the tour returned to HC. Nadal squeaked through the USO with a patsy draw, the slowest surface ever there, Super Saturday falling right for him the second year in a row and so-on.

On another note, it was Djokovic who won Miami this year, Federer went out early at Miami having won IW (beating Nadal in the SF).

In relation to Madrid - I agree that Fed probably benefited from the surface, but he showed that you could play on it. Both Nadal and Djokovic were unprofessional there - Serena Williams had it just right about them flouncing off like a couple of schoolboys. Anyway, to put that to one side, perhaps on Lydian's analysis they benefited from not having to go to the well one extra time, and if they had maybe they'd have suffered the breakdown you suggest even earlier?

You can win a match with luck, you can win a slam with the help of a lot of luck, but #1 - it seems only Fed can luck that one.

lol barry, well to be fair luck does have a hand in most things. Dont get me wrong, please, I think Federer deserves his #1 position...he's had to earn the points and has taken his opportunities. He's lasted the course better than any other current player and is smart with his routine and schedules. I just felt Djoko/Nadal burnout created a better opportunity of getting to #1...but Federer still had to get there, and he had some notable wins along the way too. I'm not about to purport that any player who's amassed an amazing 300 weeks at the tiop has done so with luck the whole way! I'm just taking about the Sept 11 to Sept 12 period. In a way Nadal and Djokovic were victums of their own success...but then again perhaps that always happens in tennis, I guess there is only so long you can operate at peak performance before you tire and someone else takes over. In that sense perhaps at times its a sense of it being the other top players turn to bathe in the glory - particularly when the present triumvirate is so close. Its good for the game and keeps interest levels up.

lydian wrote:I guess we're all entitled to our opinion

I dont personally buy 2010 is analogous to 2012 as Nadal's 2 main rivals, Federer and Djokovic, were not burning each other out in 2010 leaving the #1 slot more open so to speak. My point about late 2011/2012 was that Federer's main 2 rivals were doing exactly that. Plus Federer didnt get an event he would normally be expected to win be turned into something completely alien to him. But the views are not meant as a sleight on Federer, for me its just the reality of what happened over the past 12-15 months, IMO.

Fed had a great USO 11 and was very unlucky to not get to the final.
But that final between Nadal and Djokovic effectively killed off the rest of their season...they went to the well once too often with that match - and after a brutal earlier part of 2011 too. From USO to WTF end they both barely scraped any point. Conversely Federer cleaned up the rest of the season...probably gaining more points between USO til end of WTF than he ever has before, winning 3 straight events in a row at the end. Coincidence?

Just as they recovered into 2012 Djoko/Nadal went to the well once again at AO12, leaving them both spent...again. But dont forget on the way to the final a recharged Nadal had despatched Federer fairly routinely...being the perennial thorn Nadal is in Fed's "slam side". But the brutally of the A012 final (and the accummulative run of the previous 6 months or so) left Nadal with a flared knee which led to him finally withdrawing at Miami. Fair enough some may say, thats the price of his gruelling game. But then again its the price of him and Djokovic dictating the finals of slams and Masters over the previous 12 months, when they both raised the bar of the game. As they went into the clay season the game again pretty much revolved around Nadal-Djokovic battles...Nadal overcoming Djokovic at MC (aided by Djokovic personal troubles), then at Rome.

Then we have the fast surface blue-smurf joke of slippery Teflon Madrid which completely unseated Nadal and Djokovic. Would Federer have won a "normal" clay event with Djokovic and Nadal in the draw (...like when does Nadal ever lose to Verdasco on real clay, and after 14 straight wins?) given the form they were both in up to that point and Djokovic beat him routinely at Rome afterwards? I dont believe so. But hey, thats what happened and he got 1000 pts...but had to still earn them of course!

The major final battle at Roland Garros...where Federer was again despatcehd pretty routinely en-route...between the top 2 resulted in a loss that Djokovic took badly. He was a shadow of himself at Wimb and Olympics. We know about Nadal from Wimb onwards - his knee finally stopping him from playing any further. Given Fed's H2H vs Nadal you have to feel not having Nadal around is always going to be generally better news for Federer. But, yes Federer cant help Nadal not being around. And its remarkable how he keeps himself injury-free, so kudos to him there.

Anyway, Djokovic started to come out of his slumber when he got back to HC and won Canada. But to be fair Federer played a blinder at ultra-fast Cincy in beating Djokovic in the final. Then I think Djokovic (and Berdych, who had beaten Federer...it seems to me Federer lost fairly routinely in nearly all slams of 2012 outside Wimbledon) was unlucky at USO with the high winds that threw him off his game...after all it made him lose a set to Ferrer 6-2 before he came back the next day to lower winds. I would have expected him to win the final otherwise...so he lost more points. Andy did play really well so I know Murray fans will completely disagree with me there but I just felt the wind knocked Djokovic off-track completely - his progress up to the windy matches had been utterly ruthless.

So...what does all this mean. Well its just my opinion that Federer had a few things come into alignment that allowed him to get more points than Djokovic to become #1 again, and for me a huge factor was the 2011/early 2012 burnout that resulted from the Djoko/Nadal battles. But that's not to say he didnt take his chances and played well in doing so. That he got to #1 again isnt of great import to me particularly, its great he got the #1 weeks record and probably deserves it for his career in general but I just believe that after USO11 to this USO he's had a run that is unlikely to happen again. I dont expect others to agree with my take on these events and fair enough, we all see things differently...but its all about opinion and debate!

Wow.. I thought your original post was poor form but this one really takes the biscuit. Talk about a litany of excuses. Is there anything else you wanna add? Maybe Rafa wasn't emotionally stable enough and so lost points in the process; perhaps the rumours of Djokovic's wedding side tracked him from the main issue at hand. I don't mean to be derisory in my reply but unfortunately your post deserves no less. In fact it probably doesn't even warrant a reply but since I can't help myself, I'll just go ahead.

You talk about the 'brutal' matches beween Nadal and Djokovic, yet they didn't play a single match that resulted in five sets in 2011. Their longest match was the USO final (approx 4.5 hrs, interspersed with about an hour of ball bouncing, towelling and bum picking). The only long matches were the two on HC (Miami and IW) but they were only three setters, and iirc, lasted approx 3 hours. Hardly something to derail these guys for the rest of the season. The matches on clay and grass were one-sided affairs, hardly brutal. The USO final was no more brutal than a standard five set final (of course they actually only played four). So I'm really not sure how these six matches somehow managed to fry both of these elite athletes such that the only reason why they didn't trounce Federer in the indoor season (where they traditionally trounce him each year ) was that they were burn't out. Mmm.. burn't out from playing approx 70-80 matches in a season when funnily enough the old guy played just as many.. interesting theory. Furthermore, I recall that Federer played Djokovic five times in 2011, and all the matches bar Dubai were highly competitive. One even went to five sets. The USO semi was over four hours iirc and the FO semi was almost four hours (without the extras), yet the old guy was supposedly at a physical advantage later on in the season. Why wasn't Federer (according to you) knackered as a result of a brutal series of matches against Djokovic? And why does this tiredness burn't out rule only apply to those two. Going by your thesis, the only reason Djokovic got the number one ranking back just now is because Federer was exhausted from his efforts over the last 12 months and clearly since Cincinatti has had nothing left in the tank. Prior to Cinci he was ahead of Djokovic by some margin. But of course one could not possibly apply that logic to the VETERAN player. It doesn't fit the intended narrative and clearly this is a case of tailoring the script according to the chosen narrative.

As for Federer clearing up the Indoor season, I remember him doing something similar the year before, and since when has Nadal ever done anything in the indoor season? I guess the bagel at the WTF was because Rafa was 'burn't' out In any case this whole thesis that Nadal and Djokovic somehow played each other into the ground is ridiculous and doesn't stand up to scrutiny. 6 matches over the course of a season could never do that (Isner-Mahut not withstanding), and as I've shown, none of those matches were 'brutal'. The only really brutal match was the AUS 2012 final, yet Djokovic bounced back pretty neatly winning Miami just a couple of months later.

As for the rest of your post.. it's too ridiculous to bother with. Djokovic was so crushed by the FO final defeat that he was a shadow of himself at W and the OG? Lol, maybe he's just not as good a grass court player as Federer and thus lost to him in the W semi? No but that would be too obvious now wouldn't and after all we a have to explain away this anomaly with an excuse, however bizarre it may sound. But of course that Stoic Federer was all hunky dorey going into W despite throwing in one of his worst slam performances ever at the FO. Murray too must have been ecstatic after losing the W final. And then of course the only reason he lost the USO final was because of the wind. No doubt otherwise it would have been straight sets to Novak All of that is irrelevant of course since Fed had already achieved the number one spot by that point.

Anyway.. I probably should get back to work.

The overall point that I'm trying to make is that your thesis is wrong and the only way you can make it work is to explain away anything anomalous with a hotch-potch of increasingly bizarre excuses. I could very well do the same for Nadal's 2010 season, and indeed his 2008 season, but I prefer to give credit where it's due wholeheartedly and without throwing in asides, disclaimers, if ands or buts, because basically that could be done for any scenario depending on which side of the fence you choose to sit.



emancipator

lydian wrote:I guess we're all entitled to our opinion

I dont personally buy 2010 is analogous to 2012 as Nadal's 2 main rivals, Federer and Djokovic, were not burning each other out in 2010 leaving the #1 slot more open so to speak. My point about late 2011/2012 was that Federer's main 2 rivals were doing exactly that. Plus Federer didnt get an event he would normally be expected to win be turned into something completely alien to him. But the views are not meant as a sleight on Federer, for me its just the reality of what happened over the past 12-15 months, IMO.

Fed had a great USO 11 and was very unlucky to not get to the final.
But that final between Nadal and Djokovic effectively killed off the rest of their season...they went to the well once too often with that match - and after a brutal earlier part of 2011 too. From USO to WTF end they both barely scraped any point. Conversely Federer cleaned up the rest of the season...probably gaining more points between USO til end of WTF than he ever has before, winning 3 straight events in a row at the end. Coincidence?

Just as they recovered into 2012 Djoko/Nadal went to the well once again at AO12, leaving them both spent...again. But dont forget on the way to the final a recharged Nadal had despatched Federer fairly routinely...being the perennial thorn Nadal is in Fed's "slam side". But the brutally of the A012 final (and the accummulative run of the previous 6 months or so) left Nadal with a flared knee which led to him finally withdrawing at Miami. Fair enough some may say, thats the price of his gruelling game. But then again its the price of him and Djokovic dictating the finals of slams and Masters over the previous 12 months, when they both raised the bar of the game. As they went into the clay season the game again pretty much revolved around Nadal-Djokovic battles...Nadal overcoming Djokovic at MC (aided by Djokovic personal troubles), then at Rome.

Then we have the fast surface blue-smurf joke of slippery Teflon Madrid which completely unseated Nadal and Djokovic. Would Federer have won a "normal" clay event with Djokovic and Nadal in the draw (...like when does Nadal ever lose to Verdasco on real clay, and after 14 straight wins?) given the form they were both in up to that point and Djokovic beat him routinely at Rome afterwards? I dont believe so. But hey, thats what happened and he got 1000 pts...but had to still earn them of course!

The major final battle at Roland Garros...where Federer was again despatcehd pretty routinely en-route...between the top 2 resulted in a loss that Djokovic took badly. He was a shadow of himself at Wimb and Olympics. We know about Nadal from Wimb onwards - his knee finally stopping him from playing any further. Given Fed's H2H vs Nadal you have to feel not having Nadal around is always going to be generally better news for Federer. But, yes Federer cant help Nadal not being around. And its remarkable how he keeps himself injury-free, so kudos to him there.

Anyway, Djokovic started to come out of his slumber when he got back to HC and won Canada. But to be fair Federer played a blinder at ultra-fast Cincy in beating Djokovic in the final. Then I think Djokovic (and Berdych, who had beaten Federer...it seems to me Federer lost fairly routinely in nearly all slams of 2012 outside Wimbledon) was unlucky at USO with the high winds that threw him off his game...after all it made him lose a set to Ferrer 6-2 before he came back the next day to lower winds. I would have expected him to win the final otherwise...so he lost more points. Andy did play really well so I know Murray fans will completely disagree with me there but I just felt the wind knocked Djokovic off-track completely - his progress up to the windy matches had been utterly ruthless.

So...what does all this mean. Well its just my opinion that Federer had a few things come into alignment that allowed him to get more points than Djokovic to become #1 again, and for me a huge factor was the 2011/early 2012 burnout that resulted from the Djoko/Nadal battles. But that's not to say he didnt take his chances and played well in doing so. That he got to #1 again isnt of great import to me particularly, its great he got the #1 weeks record and probably deserves it for his career in general but I just believe that after USO11 to this USO he's had a run that is unlikely to happen again. I dont expect others to agree with my take on these events and fair enough, we all see things differently...but its all about opinion and debate!

Fantastic post Lydian

lol emancipator, I said you might not agree

You make some valid points though to be fair. I do think they burned each other out mentally though...and some of their 3 sets were long too. It surely cant be denied they just went AWOL for the rest of 2011 after USO, some matches do affect the players for a long time mentally. The other factor not mentioned much is that I believe both players had and have alot going on off-court which affected them at different times.

Anyway, let's not go back and forth in detail - as you say there is work to be done (!) and we probably wont agree on the fundamental points. But please understand I really do not seek to undermine Federer's position and achievements...trust me, I try to get my son to play Roger's way (not Nadal's) each time we take to the practice court! One can live in hope...

Fair enough Lydian.. but it seems to me that every time you are challenged on your position.. you retract but simultaneously add more smoke to the fire.. like with your last post - you.ve managed to throw in two new excuses (mental fatigue - don't you think Fed should be suffering more from that than anyone - 13 years on tour, crushing defeat to Novak at the USO? and 'off-court' issues).

I think such narratives can be created for any player.

I can't believe the uproar at such an innocuous comment from Lydian!

What is the point of contention? Did Novak and Rafa blow out at the end of 2011? A player accumulating 13,000 pts by September but only 560 pts between September and December is certainly a blow out as I would understand the term.

Did this collapse in form at the same time as Fed notching up 3000 pts give him the "window" or the opportunity to get back to number 1? Yes, we even discussed it on this forum at the time!
https://www.606v2.com/t19125-rankings
(particular respect for luciusmann's predictive skills!)

Fed was the best player for a 12 month period and deserved the number 1 ranking.

But it seems that analysis of how that happened beyond the level of "Fed is amazing" has people up in arms!

It's quite odd really. If someone were to say "Manchester United's blow out in April gave Man City the window to go top again", nobody sees that as diminishing Man City. It's just analysing how things happened.

It would be nice if we could do the same thing about tennis without invoking fury.

emanc...I'm more than prepared to defend my position (you should know that of old) but I dont think its going to serve purpose here. You see I also potentially take issue with the term "excuses" as its a loaded word with personal inference behind it. 13 years of playing is different from an intense short-term rivalry where 2 guys went hammer and tongues in 10 or so finals across a 14 month period. Narratives can be created for all players but every situation also different - did Nadal and Federer ever play 10 finals in a 14 month period?

Good points HM.