The last of Federer at Number One ?

First topic message reminder :

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?

emancipator wrote: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.

So emancipator, what analysis of results other than "player x was better than player y" are acceptable to you?

To what do you account Fed taking the number 1 ranking from Novak and Novak claiming it back 3 months later? How was each player able to achieve what they did?

The bit about this I don't really agree with is that it's very selective; Federers losses are all classed as "quite right", but Djokovic's are "a slump". Just because he got beaten soundly at Wimbledon doesn't mean he was slumping that tournament, in fact up to the semi-final he looked the form horse.

Aye, interesting debate here.

Firstly I would like to say you can't be 'lucky' to get to the world number one ranking.
This is because to get this ranking you have to accumulate a number of points throughout the year, and if you accumulate more than anyone else you get this 'ranking'. The only way you can be lucky here is if there is a miscalculation done by the ATP on the rankings, which is unlikely.

However if we are going to equate the statement 'he has accumulated the most points throughout the last 12 months' to 'he has been the best player throughout the last 12 months', other factors must be taken into consideration.

There are always other factors that must be considered, and in some cases there will be more 'fortunate' events for a certain player who is number 1 than other cases, (i.e. your main rival could get mono and have to quit the sport etc.). It would frankly be naive to accept this was not the case.

Eg:
To see this in a smaller scale, let's examine the match between Djokovic and Federer in the Australian Open 2008 semi-final.
Now who 'deserved' to win? Djokovic. Djokovic deserved to win as the player who accumulates 3 sets first is the one who the match is awarded to, and he did that hence he deserved to win the match.
But despite of this, if we analyse, there was potentially a clear mitigating factor which was 'fortunate' for Djokovic, i.e. Federer had mono. There were many Federer fans on 606 who pointed this out after the match. It can be argued that there are different circumstances for every match, but it is clear some cases have more 'fortunate circumstances' than others.
For example in the USO 2007 final when Federer beat Djokovic, these isn't really a significant fortunate circumstance for Federer, unlike there was for Djokovic @2008 AO.

In reality this is just another "weak era" thread, but narrowed down to concentrate on the period Feds been #1 for in 2012.

It's a "weak year" thread.

I'd hardly say this has been a weak year.
AO we had 2 epic matches, with Djokovic incredibly came through.
Nadal showed his worth with a dominant display at FO.#
Fed played great at Wimby, and won it.
Murray broke his slam duck at USO, with some great tennis.

So not really a weak year.

Interesting article about Djokovic's year today:

http://www.tennis.com/news/2012/10/noles-year-living-dangerously/39961/

BB, I think you are seeing a double standard that isn't there.

I know we disagree on the Djokovic having or not having a slump so I won't go over old ground.

But I don't know of anyone on this forum who views Fed's defeats as "quite right".

If, for argument's sake, Fed plays badly at WTF, I would consider his sequence of USO-Basel-WTF to be a slump, a loss of form. There's nothing "quite right" about it beyond the fact that we expect more troughs from him at 31 than we did at 25.

Did we see the Federer fans talk about mono in AO 2008?
And, that's fine, clearly it might have been a mitigating circumstance.

The whole thread or just my comments BB?

bogbrush wrote:In reality this is just another "weak era" thread, but narrowed down to concentrate on the period Feds been #1 for in 2012.

It's a "weak year" thread.

BB, I'll pose you the same question I asked emancipator then. To what do YOU attribute Fed being able to regain number 1 after Wimbledon and Djokovic being able to win it back this month? What factors came into play?

If it's wrong to consider things beyond one player winning more than another, then we may as well just read the match reports rather than come on a discussion forum.

HM Murdoch wrote:

emancipator wrote: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.

So emancipator, what analysis of results other than "player x was better than player y" are acceptable to you?

To what do you account Fed taking the number 1 ranking from Novak and Novak claiming it back 3 months later? How was each player able to achieve what they did?

I've already dealt with this in my long post above.

Of course there is scope to analyse results beyond x played better than y.

My issue here is that the sort of 'analysis' we've been subjected to is highly biased in favour of a particular narrative; ie fed only reached the number one slot because Novak and Rafa 'blew out' - whatever that's supposed to mean. Like I've already stated, that sort of narrative can be constructed for any player and any achievement, for example Novak only got the number one slot back this week because Roger 'blew out' post Cinci. The reality is that such statements are only made to denigrate a particular player's achievements and don't take into account the peaks, troughs, weaknesses, injuries etc of the other protagonist - hence it's a once-sided narrative. The reason why I wrote a long response to that initial remark is because Lydian then tried to justify it by writing a long, one sided narrative in which all the circumstances conveniently fell into place for Roger to get back the number one position, whilst leaving out the other side of the story. He was conveniently explaining away losses for Novak and Rafa to such things as burnout, mental fatigue, and being so crushed by prior results that they then affected the rest of the season or a significant portion of it, as if those are only factors which affect them but not their opponents.

Roger got the number one slot because he was the better player over a 12 month stretch. It's quite simple. His results attest to this and so do his performances against his biggest rivals. What more do you want? A week by week analysis of why Roger got more points than Novak in that 12 month stretch (ala Lydian)?

I would say the same thing now about Novak if someone were to state that he was fortunate to reclaim the number one spot. And believe me, it's be easy for me to construct a one-sided narrative to justify that point of view, but I won't, because it serves no purpose other than to denigrate his achievement AND the premise is incorrect - ie that he was lucky to achieve this.

But of course this is an open platform and we are all free to express any opinion, just as others are free to respond robustly.

emancipator wrote: that sort of narrative can be constructed for any player and any achievement, for example Novak only got the number one slot back this week because Roger 'blew out' post Cinci.

This is where I think you are wide of the mark. Lydian never said the the Djoko-Nadal blowout was the only reason Fed got to number 1 again. He/she (I don't actually know Lydian's gender!) said it gave him the window. That's completely different. For example:

"Novak only got number 1 back because Fed underperformed at USO". That is obviously nonsense.

"Fed underperforming at USO gave Novak the window to get number 1 back". Absolutely true. If Fed had made the semi final, Novak would have fallen further behind. If Fed had won, it would probably have been over for Novak. Fed only making the QF brought him into striking distance. Novak still had to go and win in Asia but the window was now open.

I know it probably sounds like semantics but Lydian made a quite innocuous two line comment and you totally went off on one about it! And from then on the thread becomes defending Fed against a slight that has never been made, with people talking about insults to Fed and imagining what Fed critics might say.

HM Murdoch wrote:

bogbrush wrote:In reality this is just another "weak era" thread, but narrowed down to concentrate on the period Feds been #1 for in 2012.

It's a "weak year" thread.

BB, I'll pose you the same question I asked emancipator then. To what do YOU attribute Fed being able to regain number 1 after Wimbledon and Djokovic being able to win it back this month? What factors came into play?

If it's wrong to consider things beyond one player winning more than another, then we may as well just read the match reports rather than come on a discussion forum.

It's not problematic to analyse; after the USO 2011 Federer took time off and made a big push. I think he decided it was now or never to get the #1 record as he's not getting any younger.
Emboldened by his late season success he pushed the boat out on events, pausing only to skip a clay event to gather himself for Paris but he still went deeper into Madrid and Rome than might normally have been executed. Maybe he even paid for that a bit at RG? Or maybe not.
He won Wimbledon, beating the form #1 and Murray on the way, and nearly won the Olympics, but ran into double trouble with Del Potro and inspired Murray.
Having got the ranking record he played smart ducking Toronto, won Cincy but blew up at the US. Since then he seems to be paying it all back, with limp showings at Shanghai and Basel. The WTF is like a last stand effort really.

As for Djokovic, he also found it hard to sustain 12 months of full-on success and did a Federer '12 in '11; through 2012 he's played well, hardly losing to anyone except a reinvigorated Nadal on clay, Federer on grass and Cincy, and Murray at the US. He lost some close matches that had he won he may have retained the ranking.

It's been close between them. I don't know what else to say.

bogbrush wrote:

HM Murdoch wrote:

bogbrush wrote:In reality this is just another "weak era" thread, but narrowed down to concentrate on the period Feds been #1 for in 2012.

It's a "weak year" thread.

BB, I'll pose you the same question I asked emancipator then. To what do YOU attribute Fed being able to regain number 1 after Wimbledon and Djokovic being able to win it back this month? What factors came into play?

If it's wrong to consider things beyond one player winning more than another, then we may as well just read the match reports rather than come on a discussion forum.

It's not problematic to analyse; after the US O 2011 Federer took time off and made a big push. I think he decided it was now or never to get the #1 record as he's not getting any younger.
Emboldened by his late season success he pushed the boat out on events, pausing only to skip a clay event to gather himself.
He won Wimbledon, beating the form #1 on the way, and nearly won the Olympics, but ran into double trouble with Del Potro and inspired Murray.
Having got the ranking record he played smart at Toronto, won Cincy but blew up at the US. Since then he seems to be paying it all back, with limp showings at Shanghai and Basel. The WTF is like a last stand effort really.

As for Djokovic, he also found it hard to sustain 12 months of full-on success and did a Federer '12 in '11; through 2012 he's played well, hardly losing to anyone except a reinvigorated Nadal on clay, Federer on grass and Cincy, and Murray at the US. He lost some close matches that had he won he may have retained the ranking.

It's been close between them. I don't know what else to say.

lydian wrote:The whole thread or just my comments BB?

Just generally, and not just this thread. I've sensed a bit of revision of Federers 3rd stint at #1 hanging around for a bit.

With Djokovic going out early Federer may wish he'd done a few rounds at Paris, YE will now be fairly close.

HM Murdoch wrote:

emancipator wrote: that sort of narrative can be constructed for any player and any achievement, for example Novak only got the number one slot back this week because Roger 'blew out' post Cinci.

This is where I think you are wide of the mark. Lydian never said the the Djoko-Nadal blowout was the only reason Fed got to number 1 again. He/she (I don't actually know Lydian's gender!) said it gave him the window. That's completely different. For example:

"Novak only got number 1 back because Fed underperformed at USO". That is obviously nonsense.

"Fed underperforming at USO gave Novak the window to get number 1 back". Absolutely true. If Fed had made the semi final, Novak would have fallen further behind. If Fed had won, it would probably have been over for Novak. Fed only making the QF brought him into striking distance. Novak still had to go and win in Asia but the window was now open.

I know it probably sounds like semantics but Lydian made a quite innocuous two line comment and you totally went off on one about it! And from then on the thread becomes defending Fed against a slight that has never been made, with people talking about insults to Fed and imagining what Fed critics might say.

Yes it is just semantics.

I didn't go off on one, as you put it, in a vacuum. There was a context to my comments. As mentioned in that post, I was responding to a sentiment that I feel has been loosely banded about without any justification. It was perhaps unfortunate that Lydian felt the brunt of my reposte, when it was intended more as a correction of this unfounded school of thought wherin Federer's achievements are somehow kinda lucky and circumstantial but when his rivals lose or start languishing then there is a ready made explanation. On the other hand if they win, then of course, it is because they were better. It is an unfair double standard and I agree with BB, in that it's been concocted and advocated because the alternative, that an ageing player many years past his prime, could still in long stretches be the best player on tour, is in some quarters unpalatable. Hence we've seen various different approaches to try and and downplay this achievement, such as 'Federer is playing better than ever' (yes of course he is), 31 is the new 25, the slower conditions actually now favour the older players (hmmm) and of course the issue being discussed in this thread.

Of course I don't believe the majority of posters agree with that sentiment, but certainly it was being banded around, so I felt the need to challenge it - nothing wrong with that. Craig valiantly defends any percieved slight against Murray, Socal the same for Novak, so I thought i'd step up in this case. It's not like I make a habit of it. From the initial response it would seem that a lot people agreed with me. You may feel differently and that's your prerogative; it all comes down to which side of the fence you sit on..

Anyway.. i can't believe i'm actually sitting here justifying my comments



emancipator

There is a little bit of creative licence going on here. I never said he was "somehow kinda lucky"...more that a window of opportunity presented itself - which I still firmly stick to. Clearly he was in a great position to take advantage of it and at the very least had to be playing well to even be in contention to take advantage. Of course, I am assuming there are better or worse times to make a push for #1...i.e. windows of opportunity do vary.

Question: in what way DONT slower conditions favour older players?

bogbrush wrote:
It's not problematic to analyse; after the USO 2011 Federer took time off and made a big push. I think he decided it was now or never to get the #1 record as he's not getting any younger.
Emboldened by his late season success he pushed the boat out on events, pausing only to skip a clay event to gather himself for Paris but he still went deeper into Madrid and Rome than might normally have been executed. Maybe he even paid for that a bit at RG? Or maybe not.
He won Wimbledon, beating the form #1 and Murray on the way, and nearly won the Olympics, but ran into double trouble with Del Potro and inspired Murray.
Having got the ranking record he played smart ducking Toronto, won Cincy but blew up at the US. Since then he seems to be paying it all back, with limp showings at Shanghai and Basel. The WTF is like a last stand effort really.

As for Djokovic, he also found it hard to sustain 12 months of full-on success and did a Federer '12 in '11; through 2012 he's played well, hardly losing to anyone except a reinvigorated Nadal on clay, Federer on grass and Cincy, and Murray at the US. He lost some close matches that had he won he may have retained the ranking.

It's been close between them. I don't know what else to say.

Firstly BB, that's a blooming good synopsis! Very little there I'd disagree with.

But you can say that Fed is now paying the price for a season of special effort and nobody disagrees.

Lydian suggests that Novak and Rafa paid the price for their 2011 and emancipator and others are all over it as if it denigrates Fed's achievement.

There's a frequent assumption of subtext when people pass comment on Federer. And that's just silly because, whoever our favourite players are, I don't think anyone on this forum would consider Fed as anything less than amazing.

emancipator wrote: It was perhaps unfortunate that Lydian felt the brunt of my reposte, when it was intended more as a correction of this unfounded school of thought wherin Federer's achievements are somehow kinda lucky and circumstantial but when his rivals lose or start languishing then there is a ready made explanation.

Well, Lydian didn't say that and I don't think anyone has said anything like that in the three weeks since you returned from your self-imposed exile. I honestly can't see where this is coming from.

Surely you're not still annoyed about Socal's cupcakes?

HM Murdoch wrote:

emancipator wrote: It was perhaps unfortunate that Lydian felt the brunt of my reposte, when it was intended more as a correction of this unfounded school of thought wherin Federer's achievements are somehow kinda lucky and circumstantial but when his rivals lose or start languishing then there is a ready made explanation.

Well, Lydian didn't say that and I don't think anyone has said anything like that in the three weeks since you returned from your self-imposed exile. I honestly can't see where this is coming from.

Surely you're not still annoyed about Socal's cupcakes?

Actually comments of that ilk have been made, you may not have noticed them, which is understandable; I tend to gloss over a lot of the comments made about other players, it's just the way it is. The fact that quite a few posters seconded my view I think shows that I didn't just imagine it or make it up.

Socal and I are now buddies; he's kindly accepted that it's now Novak's turn to stuff himself with gooey, creamy cupcakes