Djokovic could have no slams on Monday and will still be number #1

It only occurred to me after discussion with a couple of Djokovic fans on here that if Djokovic loses on Sunday, he will still remain No.1 despite the fact his 3 main rivals will possess all 4 grand slams.

Given how much discussion was had last year about how it was absurd Fed could even challenge for the No.1 spot without winning a slam, we now have a situation where Djokovic will have lost one by one all his slams and still remained at the top, how just is that? It couldn't be more ironic. Of course Djokovic could win, but it's remarkable how we've come full circle just a year later.

I don't remember either of the two Novak fans on this site lucius argueing for the position you are claiming we argued for. I said Roger got the number 1 partly because of Novak's injury at the end 2011 and Roger cleaned up points while Novak's results went down during that period. I don't know what would be deemed hypocrtical or odd about that position.

Wow thats a good stats I forgot about, so after a long time in ATP such situation is possible, I would take it but lets wait till Sunday to see whether Murray takes the title or not.

Losing Sunday's title match, Djokovic would have in the last 4 Majors (starting with FO '12) - RUp, SF, RUp, RUp. He currently holds 3 TMS title as well.

RF's last 4 Majors - SF, W, SF, SF, holds 3 TMS as well.

N last 4 Majors - W, 2R, DNP, DNP, holds 2 TMS.

AM's last 4 Majors - SF, RUp, W, W, holds NO TMS currently.

Rolling 12 month rankings takes all into account - sure, Majors should be worth more than other events, but it's combination of all of these. Taking the above into account - the main 13 events, plus WTF, which Federer won, it's not unreasonable for Djokovic to remain No 1 if he should lose the final.

Not sure what point counts will be, aside from Ferrere bumping Nadal down to 5th, but until we get to Indian Wells (Federer) and Miami (Djokovic), the points aren't "mega," but there then could be a definitive swing on Top 3 rankings.

People who tend to get "swayed" by the fact that not holding a Major singles title and being ranked World No 1, are incompatible, are not taking the whole picture into consideration. It'll be interesting to see who does win on Sunday evening - Djokovic - 1st man in OE to win 3 consecutive AO, or Murray - 1st man to win next immediate Major, after winning his maiden Major. Lots of the line for both, this may well be the next Major rivalry with Federer declining (age), and Nadal, an unkown (knees) at the moment.

Let's enjoy tomorrow's match, then see where the Spring circuit leaves the rankings after the 1st 2 TMS tournaments.

PS. Come on Li!!

Good ylopnom, the slams are the most important accomplishment on tour, but it doesn't mean that the rest of the tournaments are not taken into consideration. Of the last 6 slams Djokovic has played in 5 of those finals. He lost to Nadal at RG and fed on grass, and Murray in 5 sets at the USO, while winning the AO. The man's consistent play across all surfaces should be taken into account.

luciusmann wrote:It only occurred to me after discussion with a couple of Djokovic fans on here that if Djokovic loses on Sunday, he will still remain No.1 despite the fact his 3 main rivals will possess all 4 grand slams.

Given how much discussion was had last year about how it was absurd Fed could even challenge for the No.1 spot without winning a slam, we now have a situation where Djokovic will have lost one by one all his slams and still remained at the top, how just is that? It couldn't be more ironic. Of course Djokovic could win, but it's remarkable how we've come full circle just a year later.

What a strange post.

Coming "full circle" means we are back to how we started. This is at least correct. At the start of 2012, Fed was 3000 points behind Novak and would probably need to win a slam to get to number 1.

At the start of 2013 he is 2700 points behind Novak and will probably need a slam to get to number 1.

Not sure what is remarkable or ironic about that though.

Novak will have lost his slams "one by one"? Well, unless he loses them in a poker game, that is how slams are lost.

How "just" is it? I don't think any rules were broken but feel free to hold an enquiry.

it would be different if he had never won a slam before and was still number 1 while Murray had won the last two of course. It would look a bit odd, but the guy is a 5x champion, everyone knows he's a worthy number 1 regardless if he holds a slam or not.

CAS wrote:it would be different if he had never won a slam before and was still number 1 while Murray had won the last two of course. It would look a bit odd, but the guy is a 5x champion, everyone knows he's a worthy number 1 regardless if he holds a slam or not.

Novak is the 5 slam version of Caroline Wozniacki, oh wait the biggest knock on wozniacki was that she had zero slams.

I don't agree with this idea that a Slam is essential, the ranking system is reasonably accurate. If you're #1 you have been the best over the last year; all else is rationalisation.

bogbrush wrote:I don't agree with this idea that a Slam is essential, the ranking system is reasonably accurate. If you're #1 you have been the best over the last year; all else is rationalisation.

I'd agree with that. Especially, if you are a multiple slam winner like Djokovic is it doesn't really call anything into question.

Win or lose, is anyone seriously doubting that Djokovic is currently, and has been over the last 12 (even 24) months, the best player in the world.

I'm not in any doubt that he's deserved #1 whatever happens tomorrow.

I voted no for all the reasons listed above.

barrystar wrote:Win or lose, is anyone seriously doubting that Djokovic is currently, and has been over the last 12 (even 24) months, the best player in the world.

I'm not in any doubt that he's deserved #1 whatever happens tomorrow.

I don't see anyone would be doubting that he would still deserve his number 1 spot, at the very least on the basis of consistency. However, there would be a fair argument that he was no longer the best player on any individual surface, which would not be where a number 1 player would want to be.

Oh it would be a disappointing way for him to have the rank for sure,

I suppose we'd be back to hearing so much about the locker room rankings again, especially given who'd be appointed the locker room #1 by people who don't see the inside of the aforementioned room.

Not sure what the point of this thread is.

I voted no because they both 'need' it just as much as each other. Of course they don't really 'need' it but they both want it badly.

Likewise there are others who could be deemed to be in 'need' of it too, but perhaps they want it less.

Need? It was 'need that stayed Bilbos hand. There are many in tennis who deserve 'need' and many in 'need' that deserve tennis. Can you give it to them? Do not be so quick to judge in matters of tennis and 'need' oh Lucius.

Hope that clears things up.



emancipator

Djokovic deserves to be the #1 and is the #1 because of his more consistent performance against lower ranked players enabling him to consistently reach at least semis in most tournaments and having the most Ss and Fs in slams even without the Ws.

However, if Murray wins, 2 slams in a row to Djokovic's 0 held, then it really would be a grey area. Djokovic would be #1 but he would need to win the FO or Wimbledon to confirm that.

Well it is his best surface/tournament out of the 4 majors so yes he really does need to win on Sunday otherwise he will struggle to win any majors this year on the other surfaces/tournaments that aren't his favourite ones.

emancipator wrote:Not sure what the point of this thread is.

I voted no because they both 'need' it just as much as each other. Of course they don't really 'need' it but they both want it badly.

Likewise there are others who could be deemed to be in 'need' of it too, but perhaps they want it less.

Need? It was 'need that stayed Bilbos hand. There are many in tennis who deserve 'need' and many in 'need' that deserve tennis. Can you give it to them? Do not be so quick to judge in matters of tennis and 'need' oh Lucius.

Hope that clears things up.



emancipator

There was a lot of discussion before the French Open and in fact by socal himself that it would be preposterous that the old man Federer could attain No.1 without holding a current slam title, as it was more than possible (at the time) Fed could actually reach it without holding a slam. Socal even opined that the person who had 2 slams ought to be the No.1 even if Fed won Wimbledon (I can't remember if this was during or before Wimbledon or before it but it was certainly said)! I have a long memory so I remember these things!

Socal, you actually thought it was absurd that Fed could be ranked above the young guns who'd bean defeating him comfortably and consistently since the Aussie Open '10. You even went to on to say that the only way Fed could be No.1 was because he played tournaments where either Nadal, Murray or Djokovic were missing but after that didn't wash with most on this forum you changed your tune and said that Djokovic was so badly injured (perhaps he was hobbling around somewhere with one leg) towards the end of '12 and therefore that was the only way Fed could be No.1 (because of Djokovic's inadvertent charity).

It's therefore ironic on the score that a fervent Djokovic fan opined that the person with two slams should be No.1 and it could be the case that Murray is in that situation but No.1 but the guy with absolutely no slam will remain atop. After all, one of the arguments put forward about why it was silly Fed could be No.1 again was because he simply might not have any slams if he attained No.1 and just because he had been No.1 in the past doesn't mean he shouldn't at least have one if he was to be No.1 again (but he should still be trumped if he has 1 compared to Djoko's 2)! I remember that you Bogbrush were not persuaded at all by socal's reasoning of why Fed had attained No.1 (because Djokovic was seriously injured towards the end of the reason).

Let's be clear, I find it peculiar that some posters think it's somehow not a big deal if he loses the Aussie Open. It wasn't a big deal if he didn't win RG but the Aussie Open? He's won it 3 times, his most successful slam and if he can't win on his best surface and best slam, can someone tell me where he will win his next one this year?

CAS wrote:it would be different if he had never won a slam before and was still number 1 while Murray had won the last two of course. It would look a bit odd, but the guy is a 5x champion, everyone knows he's a worthy number 1 regardless if he holds a slam or not.

I see what you mean about being a worthy champion (which he is) but that's not the issue which I'm really getting at. He was #1 for a whole year and on top of that, he's been No.1 again for the last 2 months so he's certainly had a good spell as No.1 but I would find it very odd that if he lost to Murray tomorrow then he'd have lost two grand slam finals in a row to the same person and is still ranked above him and by some distance too.

I guess what I find strange is that Djokovic would be the World No.1 but certainly would not be the best player in the world (when it comes to the elite tennis tournaments the sport values most highly and which are most demanding).

I never accepted any rationalisation of Federers #1, and when he captured it by winning Wimbledon he made any criticism of it redundant.

Regarding Djokovic, if he loses tomorrow and is a Slamless #1, then I still think its a fair ranking but obviously it's not ideal, and not something that Djokovic himself would be content about.

Like I said, we'd be hearing a lot about the locker room ranking from Murray fans......

socal1976 wrote:I don't remember either of the two Novak fans on this site lucius argueing for the position you are claiming we argued for. I said Roger got the number 1 partly because of Novak's injury at the end 2011 and Roger cleaned up points while Novak's results went down during that period. I don't know what would be deemed hypocrtical or odd about that position.

That's funny socal, since if my memory serves me correct, you're the very person who claimed it was somehow undeserved Fed could challenge for the No.1 spot without a slam. In fact I had a whole discussion with you that Fed could get to No.1 without winning a slam which you thought was highly unlikely but actually more than possible given Fed's position points wise. You rapidly changed your tune when Fed won Wimbledon but then you started out with the 'theory' that Federer's rise to No.1 was only possible because his 3 main rivals were not present at the tournaments he'd won, when posters analysed this 'theory' it was shown to be totally fanciful so then you changed to the tune that Fed was only able to attain the No.1 spot because he cleared up the trophies at the end of the year because Djokovic had torn out his back and no doubt was hobbling around for 3 months allowing that crafty Federer to quietly sneak Djokovic's crown. Again, maybe you forget some of the silly things you've said but I certainly haven't and I'm more than sure other posters will now remember what you were saying at the time too!

What would be very odd is the holder of 2 slams only being ranked No 3.
Has that ever happened before?

If Murray wins tomorrow (big if), it would be a little strange that he would be behind Novak having finished ahead of him in the last 3 slams... But that just goes to show Novak's all year round consistency.

In masters and other tournaments he destroys everyone, bar the occasional loss to the top guys. I mean, how many matches did Novak lose to players outside the top 4 last season... 2?

It's a worthy question to ask if a slam less number 1 is a worthy number 1, but he's no Safina... He is totally deserving of the number 1 in my opinion. I don't think it would undermine the rankings.

I haven't had time to read all the above comments but I saw the word "Safina" so I can assume someone's already made this point. It's not like Djokovic has reached World Number 1 without winning a major like so many in the women's game have done recently (Safina, Wozniacki, Jankovic etc) so no, he doesn't "need" to win tomorrow. IMO he'll win at least 5 more majors and he's so wonderfully consistent that all year he doesn't "need" to do anything.

luciusmann wrote:

socal1976 wrote:I don't remember either of the two Novak fans on this site lucius argueing for the position you are claiming we argued for. I said Roger got the number 1 partly because of Novak's injury at the end 2011 and Roger cleaned up points while Novak's results went down during that period. I don't know what would be deemed hypocrtical or odd about that position.

That's funny socal, since if my memory serves me correct, you're the very person who claimed it was somehow undeserved Fed could challenge for the No.1 spot without a slam. In fact I had a whole discussion with you that Fed could get to No.1 without winning a slam which you thought was highly unlikely but actually more than possible given Fed's position points wise. You rapidly changed your tune when Fed won Wimbledon but then you started out with the 'theory' that Federer's rise to No.1 was only possible because his 3 main rivals were not present at the tournaments he'd won, when posters analysed this 'theory' it was shown to be totally fanciful so then you changed to the tune that Fed was only able to attain the No.1 spot because he cleared up the trophies at the end of the year because Djokovic had torn out his back and no doubt was hobbling around for 3 months allowing that crafty Federer to quietly sneak Djokovic's crown. Again, maybe you forget some of the silly things you've said but I certainly haven't and I'm more than sure other posters will now remember what you were saying at the time too!

I understand where you're coming from.

If I've read this correctly this is a response to Socal's remarks about Federer being fortunate to regain the number one spot (and not just Socal but others too). Of course I also remember all the hullabaloo surrounding Fed's ascension back to the top and at the time I wrote a fantastic post refuting this claim. Sadly the enemies of humanity conspired to try and shoot me down in flames.

However, they, the aforementioned enemies of peace, failed to realise that I am the emancipator.

All being said and done I am not one to argue that the number 1 needs a slam (except in some exceptional circumstances perhaps such as if a player, say Ferrer, were to accumulate enough points to reach the top spot based mainly on clay points and having had no previous history of slam success). In Screech's case we know he's good enough and can play on all surfaces. The fact that he has not won a slam in a year almost does not matter because he already has multiple slams to his name and will likely win many more (perish the thought )



emancipator

luciusmann wrote:

socal1976 wrote:I don't remember either of the two Novak fans on this site lucius argueing for the position you are claiming we argued for. I said Roger got the number 1 partly because of Novak's injury at the end 2011 and Roger cleaned up points while Novak's results went down during that period. I don't know what would be deemed hypocrtical or odd about that position.

That's funny socal, since if my memory serves me correct, you're the very person who claimed it was somehow undeserved Fed could challenge for the No.1 spot without a slam. In fact I had a whole discussion with you that Fed could get to No.1 without winning a slam which you thought was highly unlikely but actually more than possible given Fed's position points wise. You rapidly changed your tune when Fed won Wimbledon but then you started out with the 'theory' that Federer's rise to No.1 was only possible because his 3 main rivals were not present at the tournaments he'd won, when posters analysed this 'theory' it was shown to be totally fanciful so then you changed to the tune that Fed was only able to attain the No.1 spot because he cleared up the trophies at the end of the year because Djokovic had torn out his back and no doubt was hobbling around for 3 months allowing that crafty Federer to quietly sneak Djokovic's crown. Again, maybe you forget some of the silly things you've said but I certainly haven't and I'm more than sure other posters will now remember what you were saying at the time too!

No, I didn't say that fed's number one was illegitimate somehow. Again you misconstrue what I said and add something to it, which is an experience I have often had with people online, you won't be the first. I stated that Novak had an injury, which was well documented and obviously impacted his play. This opened up an opportunity for one of his rivals to step up, the only one who managed was Roger Federer and credit to him for doing it. I never mentioned anything about the tournaments he won because his rivals weren't present. This was the position I stated over and over again. Is it calling something illegitimate to give factual context surrounding an injury? Then if that is the case then guilty as charged. I in fact didn't even make the injury argument till certain posters kept talking about how pathetic Djokovic was for losing the number 1 to a 30 year old. And I stated the obvious rebuttal that if you want to open up that can of worms well then did you not notice the torn muscle in his back that hobbled him in the indoor season? When Novak was dissed for losing the #1 to roger, I pointed to his serious injury issue in the 52 week run that Roger had to the #1. If you don't want to accept my clairification and feel that I am in error fine.

As for people saying silly things in a thread, judging by the results of your poll question many people consider your contention today to be silly. And I would further posit a bit premature since the final hasn't been played and at RG I think after Nadal, Novak is the next big favorite to win, and we have no idea how good nadal will be how fast. If you have a problem with me stating the obvious that Roger was aided by Novak's injury in sweeping up the indoor tournaments in 2011, well then I point you to the results of one Novak djokovic in the indoor tournaments of 2012. Many people were talking about how Novak isn't nearly as good indoors and even if he was healthy he would 3rd favorite to Roger and Andy on those courts. Straight sets in london, and the 2012 title in Shanghai seem to dispel that rumor that Novak would haven't made a difference to Roger's run in the indoors of 2011. And furthermore makes you continually argueing with me about the strenght of Novak's indoor talents look even worse.

And the people I am talking about who said those silly things about Novak not being a very good indoor player I am talking mainly about you, Lucius. Can we add that to the catalogue of silly things people say or are only my silly statements bookmarked for eternity.

PS most of the things you think I said, I didn't say. You are adding hot sauce to all the points I made and making them sound a lot worse than what they were. I qualify my statements and never say the sweeping type of generalizations that you contend I made. Years of legal training teach me how to qualify statements. I did not say it was preposterous that Roger would be number 1 without a slam, never, if you can find that statement I would be happy to read it.

what is funny in all your commentary of the things I didn't say you missed the most incendiary thing that I did say, which was that Roger was being fed cupcake draws by the draw rigging committees to give him the year end number 1 ranking, in retrospect that was not very smart. Although he was getting cupcakes fed to him at the time and it was ticking me off. Since then Novak got a couple of nice draws in slams, so I am still trying to figure out what game the draw rigging committees are playing. See I have no problem in admitting that I have said incendiary things in the past to annoy federer fans, but you are misconstruing my arguments on the specific point of Roger's attaining #1 ranking, never claimed it was illegitmate without a slam. I claimed that in the future (back in the summer of 2012) if the Rog kept getting cupcakes fed to him his year end #1 would be illegitimate. And as a said in retrospect a dumb comment. The other stuff you claim I said I didn't or not the way you are portraying it.

socal1976 wrote:PS most of the things you think I said, I didn't say. You are adding hot sauce to all the points I made and making them sound a lot worse than what they were. I qualify my statements and never say the sweeping type of generalizations that you contend I made. Years of legal training teach me how to qualify statements. I did not say it was preposterous that Roger would be number 1 without a slam, never, if you can find that statement I would be happy to read it.

what is funny in all your commentary of the things I didn't say you missed the most incendiary thing that I did say, which was that Roger was being fed cupcake draws by the draw rigging committees to give him the year end number 1 ranking, in retrospect that was not very smart. Although he was getting cupcakes fed to him at the time and it was ticking me off. Since then Novak got a couple of nice draws in slams, so I am still trying to figure out what game the draw rigging committees are playing. See I have no problem in admitting that I have said incendiary things in the past to annoy federer fans, but you are misconstruing my arguments on the specific point of Roger's attaining #1 ranking, never claimed it was illegitmate without a slam. I claimed that in the future (back in the summer of 2012) if the Rog kept getting cupcakes fed to him his year end #1 would be illegitimate. And as a said in retrospect a dumb comment. The other stuff you claim I said I didn't or not the way you are portraying it.

Socal, I never seen such fast back tracking when I'm pretty sure many posters will remember what you were saying! Look, let's just look on the lighter side of things, you do have some rather outlandinh things to say at times, none more so then refusing to accept that Fed got to No.1 fair and square and Djokovic's injury played no significant role in allowing it to happen. You were gracious when Federer reclaimed the top spot and won Wimbledon but when you say the things you say (such as Fed only got it because Djokovic was injured for the final 3 months of 2011) then it sounds disingenuous. Let's not even start on your highly sensationalised take on the French Open final! I don't want you to misconstrue what I've said either, none of what I've said is an attack on you but some of the positions you have taken. I'm also fairly sure that it was you who said it was Federer who had accumulated many of his points at tournaments which didn't attract all 3 top players.

Regarding your paragraph about the use of the word 'preposterous', I haven't said anywhere that's the exact word you used, I was summarising the gist of what you were saying at the time, which is as I remember it at the time and given I've remember nearly all these things from the top of my head without the need to read the threads at the time, I'm fairly satisfied I've recalled them correctly too. It's funny you talk about how you qualify all your statements because of 'years of legal training' when in the same post you talk about cupcake draws which does more than anything I've said to undermine your integrity in looking at tennis dispassionately rather than in a partisan way as a fervent Djokovic fan (as most would consider you on here)! I don't want to retread the same issues that have been debated in the past but any player who's seriously injured for example, like you're saying Djokovic was at the end of 2011, would not play at all, ask Nadal who hasn't played since Wimbledon and who I actually believe is genuinely injured seriously. Unless you're telling me Novak is one hell of a greedy man (he already has tens of millions of dollars) and only continued playing for money (so he could claim his $1, 000, 000 for taking part in the ATP WTF), then what you're saying is piffle regarding injury. Nor have I said that you said Federer would be illegitimate as No.1 if he attained it (I'm sure I didn't use that exact word but if I have, the I apoligise). However, one thing is for sure, you did say a whole range of things to suggest Fed somehow got the spot by some lucky break which I think the vast majority of posters rejected, and that didn't include just Federer fans like me, Bogbrush and Emancipator!

Btw Emancipator, I'm sure Djoko will win more slams, but I will be interested in which of the remaining slams he will win this year if he loses today. I'm not interested in forecasting how many he will potentially win in the distant future because in fact I think this year will crucial to deciding how many he will end up with. I mean it can be shown like this if he loses today and wins nothing else this year: 2011: 3, 2012: 1, 2013: 0. The trajectory is clear and it's down so getting 5 extra is tougher if he's reduced to zero slams this year. I'd put Nadal for sure over Djokovic at the French and I would be interested to see how Djokovic might play against Murray on clay too but at Wimbledon he has not only Murray but Federer to deal with and potentially both of them en-route to a final and the same situation for the USO too. Hence why I feel if he loses today, Djokovic may also become somewhat dependent on the draw in future as Federer already is at 31.

bogbrush wrote:I never accepted any rationalisation of Federers #1, and when he captured it by winning Wimbledon he made any criticism of it redundant.

Regarding Djokovic, if he loses tomorrow and is a Slamless #1, then I still think its a fair ranking but obviously it's not ideal, and not something that Djokovic himself would be content about.

Like I said, we'd be hearing a lot about the locker room ranking from Murray fans......

Yup, exactly. I can only admit that prior to Federer winning Wimbledon I was more interested in seeing Fed attain the No.1 spot, of course doing so via winning a slam was preferable but it was clear from the points position he could do it without winning one and attaining it was what mattered because if I'm honest I'd actually started to believe the doomsayers like socal (but he wasn't the only one) who said Federer couldn't beat Djokovic in a slam (and there was evidence to suggest so given how RG went a month earlier).

As someone else mentioned though, it would be awfully odd that one of Djokovic's chief rivals is ranked below him (Murray) and not just a little bit below but quite a bit below him after personally defeating him and holding 2/4 slams and yet is so far from the No.1 spot. It's a strange proposition to say the least. There's no doubt Djokovic's No.1 position is built on consistently, because he won the same number of tournaments as Federer but but also lost more finals (5 vs Fed's 4) but the finals he made also carried more points hence why his lead is bigger. Obviously Murray's issue is he hasn't wont a ATP Masters 1000 title so if he wins today and wins a title or two, he's highly likely to knock Djokovic off the top spot (and definitely if he takes Miami) so maybe it won't an anomaly that lasts long.

There is Rios, and then Lendl on the ATP side. I am not sure holding a slam is the litmus test for being #1. Lendl did win a slam later.

On the WTA side Jankovic, Wozniacki and Safina never won a slam, but Clijsters and Mauresmo became #1, similar to Lendl.

Consistency, for these players, more than anything else made them #1s, in some cases, without ever winning a slam.

I have voted 'No' to the poll. If the argument started with Federer, there is no need to continue it with Djokovic.

ATP and WTA rankings are very clear, without any ambiguity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ATP_number_1_ranked_singles_players#Players_who_were_ranked_World_No._1_without_having_won_a_Grand_Slam_tournament

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_WTA_number_1_ranked_players#Players_who_were_ranked_world_no._1_without_having_won_a_Grand_Slam_tournament

Lucius, first of all, Djokovic was like 66-2 before his injury, the idea that you are trumpeting that his back injury didn't seriously affect his play is ludicrous as he went like 8-4 or something like that after the back injury. Bottom line no back tracking, I stand by my comment that Roger most likely would not of regained the number 1 if Novak and Nadal didn't suffer serious injuries during his 52 week run to the number. I find it amusing that you even think that statement is very controversial. And your evidence that BB and emancipator disagreed with me on this isn't evidence, you found some other people who have the same opinion that you do on a site filled with federer fans. If that is evidence of anything then I want a refund on my law school tuition. No way Roger gets to number 1 without those two guys going down with serious injuries, last time I checked a torn muscle in your back is considered pretty serious, whether you continue to play at reduced effectiveness or not.

As for your contention that I am a Djokovic partisan, guilty as charged, I don't think I have ever denied it. And I don't deny goading and flame throwing, or being a hothead, or mixing some comedy in my act so to speak. I also did a lengthy thread callng for an investigation of fed taking Novak's seat, I also did a thread talking about Uncle Toni, the free masons, and Guy forget conspiring to give Nadal a favorable french open draw. I rely on the reader to be able to discern some tongue and cheek and sometimes it falls on deaf ears.

I also stand by thead that the foggy withdrawal hurt Novak's preparation for the 2011 FO semi, brad gilbert and other commentators also have stated the same thing.

You seem to forget how you argued with me that novak wasn't a particularly good indoor player all of last year, and then when he won everything almost on the indoors in 2012, I didn't throw it in your face that you had vastly and grossly underestimated his indoor abilities. Maybe the fact that even before last year he had won the year end championship, the paris indoors, the basel indoors against federer on his home court, the beijing open, etc. Would have clued you in but you refused to accept it. In fact after outdoor hard his next best surface is indoor hardcourt and has been his whole career. But somehow you talked about his indoor ability as if he struggled relatively in those conditions.

If you think that a healthy 66-2 Djokovic would have 4 more bad losses in like 10 matches if not for serious injury issues in 2011, you are the one who is positing something alien to the actual facts not I.

Delusional stuff, legal training and you go on and on about draw rigging without qualifying it without a single shred of evidence, you're 'evidence' is pure speculation, hence why you undermine your own credibility.

Furthermore you're injury allegation is complete hash too because it was said repeatedly said throughout 2011 that Djokovic had a remarkable year but that it couldn't continue and when it doesn't that's your 'evidence' that he must be severely injured even though he continued to play Basel, Paris and WTF in 2011, you're not thinking seriously if you think Djokovic was playing while injured, show me the evidence this was the case, where Djokovic has attributed those loses because he was injured? You wont find any. This is what I mean, you're so biased to Djokovic that even when it's unlikely he was injured for Basel, Paris & WTF (because he took part) you still insist he was without a single shred of evidence. You should seek a refund on your law education if you're insisting he was without providing a simple verification this was the case from Djokovic himself that this was the case.

I was talking about the French Open final and you haven't addressed that you were saying after Djokovic lose the final that somehow he had been robbed because the match had to be suspended because of rain.

Yes, I did argue you about Djokovic's indoor record because you made it out to be amazing but even last year he won the WTF, that was the single tournament he won. You also mention Shanghai as an if or in fact mention it as evidence of Djokovic's good record in the indoor circuit. When was Shanghai part of the indoor season? Nor is the China Open. You really need to check what you say instead of writing piffle. You're argument was that because Djokovic had won every tournament on the indoor circuit that meant he was an excellent player but I contended it had taken him a number of years too and he hadn't won all of the big tournaments in a year like Federer and at that time, had only none of the tournaments more than once. That has changed but that doesn't change him to becoming an excellent indoor player. Better than Nadal but far short of Federer.

I stated clearly before that what you said wasn't simply rejected by Federer fans alone (about the French Open final 2012) and I state clearly that Bogbrush and Emancipator were not the only ones, but the vast majority of posters rejected the piffle being peddled at the time. You've done a good job of attempting to distort what I been saying. I'm amazed you have talking about your legal training and yet have misread or misunderstood so much of what I written. No wonder OJ was found innocent with such brilliant legal minds in the US!

As we speak though, Djokovic has lost the first set at the Aussie Open. What a terrible tie breaker Djokovic played!

Whatever lucius, yeah I made up the torn muscle in his back and weak indoor players win two masters cups. Whatever the rest of your post is filled with silly insults and relying on other people agreeing with you. I am done with the conversation you have officially become not worth my time.

Lucius:

-During his Davis Cup match against Del Potro, Djokovic was in agony after sustaining a torn muscle in his back. He had to retire during that match.
He was then very patchy in Basel before being bagelled by Nishokiri in the third set in the semis... then he decided to totally skip Shanghai due to injury concerns. Then in Paris he pulled out of his quarter finals match against Tsonga handing him a walk-over. In WTF he was then all over the place, he could barely serve and was crushed by Ferrer 6-3 6-1.

-Socal never said Djokovic was robbed in the FO 2012 final. In-fact I remember him being very gracious after the match and congratulating Nadal fans- I have very very rarely seen Federer fans do that after he loses to Nadal. Some then claimed Nadal deserved a 3-set victory as the 4th set was in the rain, but Socal refuted that. He never said the final was robbed.

-Lucius- Shanghai is indeed part of the indoor circuit... you need to research your facts.
Djokovic won Shanghai when it was WTF a few years ago as well. In 2012 he won both Shanhai and WTF in London.

Thank IMBL, apparently winning every single big indoor tournament on the circuit doesn't make Novak a great indoor player and in fact is a sign of weakness. That isn't evidence in mr. Mann's book. Whatever, who cares Novak getting number 6 baby.

AHHHHHHH! This thread looks even more ridiculous than when it was first posted. What a joke of a thread frankly.

Can we do a revote? I think this poll would be even more one-sided.

I thought Shanghai was outdoors but with a movable roof (like Wimbledon) or a roof that doesn't fully cover and seal - ?

It Must Be Love wrote:Lucius:

-During his Davis Cup match against Del Potro, Djokovic was in agony after sustaining a torn muscle in his back. He had to retire during that match.
He was then very patchy in Basel before being bagelled by Nishokiri in the third set in the semis... then he decided to totally skip Shanghai due to injury concerns. Then in Paris he pulled out of his quarter finals match against Tsonga handing him a walk-over. In WTF he was then all over the place, he could barely serve and was crushed by Ferrer 6-3 6-1.

-Socal never said Djokovic was robbed in the FO 2012 final. In-fact I remember him being very gracious after the match and congratulating Nadal fans- I have very very rarely seen Federer fans do that after he loses to Nadal. Some then claimed Nadal deserved a 3-set victory as the 4th set was in the rain, but Socal refuted that. He never said the final was robbed.

-Lucius- Shanghai is indeed part of the indoor circuit... you need to research your facts.
Djokovic won Shanghai when it was WTF a few years ago as well. In 2012 he won both Shanhai and WTF in London.

WRONG. Please check if this is factually correct before you post IMBL. As evidence, please look at this; http://www.atpworldtour.com/Tournaments/Event-Calendar.aspx
scroll down to September and October and look at surface and it says clearly of both China and Shanghai which socal cities both of as 'indoor hardcourt' but nowhere does it say 'indoor hardcourt'. I'm happy for a fellow poster to side with another and argue against me but not if they're asserting falsehood as fact as can clearly be shown on the ATP's own website! socal was clearly referring to Shanghai last year, not when the WTF was in Shanghai. Anyway, both of you are factually wrong on this, so please concede what is easily proved from the ATP's own website please.

I've said socal is usually gracious immediately after a slam if his man has lost and whoever is champion and I know my posts are long but I've said that too. But it's what he says afterwards, a few days afterwards which casts doubt on whether this is genuine because of some of what he says. The number of silly threads socal has put up has no bounds and that's not to say all his threads are but it's funny he seems to forget them so easily. let's not forget the absurd thread like this which goes on about the Fognini effect: https://www.606v2.com/t6328-how-will-the-end-of-djoko-s-streak-affect-his-play

Lets not forget this absurd thread by you, how does crow taste Lucius. No year end number one for federer last year like you kept trying to sell. Novak is a two time masters cup winner and an indoor giant and guess what he is the 2013 AO champion, which makes this thread that was voted down nearly unanomously before the final look even more comic. Keep telling us how novak with six slams is quote a "very good" but not great player. Or how he isn't a great indoor player with two year end masters. Yeah you really understand tennis buddy.

Lucius, I don't see any purpose in dragging up posts that are way in the past. That discussion is long over and I don't think it needs to be resurrected.

JuliusHMarx wrote:Lucius, I don't see any purpose in dragging up posts that are way in the past. That discussion is long over and I don't think it needs to be resurrected.

That's what they said about Jason Voorhees.

socal1976 wrote: Bottom line no back tracking, I stand by my comment that Roger most likely would not of have regained the number 1 if Novak and Nadal didn't suffer serious injuries during his 52 week run to the number.

Being a Tennis player, injury is part and parcel of a career. It is also possible that Nadal and Djokovic would not have had any impact on the year-end tourneys because of past track record (WTF/Paris/Shanghai).

It is a what-if scenario. Nadal has been out since W2012.

Federer had back issues and a hip injury coming out of Madrid (the blue clay one) but still played Rome.

@IMBL... Djokovic very clearly admitted that trying to play Del Potro @DC was a mistake. Whether he aggravated it further is again conjecture. Should he have even bothered playing Basel? Murray withdrew as he did from Madrid with injuries. If Djokovic made his injury worse by continuing to play, it was not a problem that Federer created for him, did he?

Players management (or mismanagement of their own calendar) is their own problem, and should not be put on anyone else's doorstep. As SoCal would say, it is pure greed, is it not? Remember Paris with Djokovic playing just one match for a 1.6M payoff? Should I even mention exhos these players play.

I am glad to see Djokovic retain his AO (2011/12/13) and equal Emmo's record.

socal1976 wrote:Lets not forget this absurd thread by you, how does crow taste Lucius. No year end number one for federer last year like you kept trying to sell. Novak is a two time masters cup winner and an indoor giant and guess what he is the 2013 AO champion, which makes this thread that was voted down nearly unanomously before the final look even more comic. Keep telling us how novak with six slams is quote a "very good" but not great player. Or how he isn't a great indoor player with two year end masters. Yeah you really understand tennis buddy.

This thread was having a debate and a poll, I've never said it should a requirement to win a slam to be No.1, hence why I posed the question in this thread. If this thread looks absurd, your previous threads (its only one I've found and dug up) look scarily insane. You haven't answer any of many of my questions which is concerning for someone of who's had years of legal training. Can you show us the evidence you have for the alleged draw rigging committees you say exist? Or evidence from Djokovic (or even his team) that he had a serious injury that meant he wasn't able to play at his best at the end of 2011? A bad run of results as you say IMBL doesn't mean Djokovic is injured at all, it can equally mean his form has dropped and it happens to all players. Or either of you explain how Shanghai or China is part of the indoor hardcourt season when ATP website doesn't even state them as such? Hence why you blow your own credibility socal and why I rarely consider you a fair minded poster these days.

Regarding Federer's chance for Year End No.1 last year, I simply maintained he had a good shot of getting it but as I've said in previous posts, Federer was erratic and the USO points loss as well as losing Basel and the WTF hampered his chances significantly. After Fed won Cinci last year, there was no reason to suppose he would start losing as regularly as he did after that, hence why I thought he would lose to Murray here, too erratic in results to be capable of it. How I could have known that dip would happened exactly when he could ill afford it (if he wanted to be Year End No.1) I dont know, I'm not mystic Meg!

You're perfectly correct JuliusHMarx, we shouldn't resurrected socal's embarrassing threads, but he seems to forget they exist, hence why I had to link one of them. This thread I put up may not have been well advised but where I have one, socal has countless and he said he's happy for them to resurrected, he doesn't seem to think they exist, so why not?

Can't you sum up your nonsense posts in less than 150 words, I have been awake for 23 hrs, and the eyes are getting blurry. Oh yeah keep telling us the torn muscle in his back didn't happen and that 6 slams makes you a very good player, or that winning every major indoor tourament on tour is proof of your weakness indoors. Buddy, you embarass yourself all the time with your analysis the funny thing is you don't get it.