How High Can Roger Fly?

First topic message reminder :

IMO Federer played the match of the year when he defeated Djokovic in the Dubai semi. If he can play like that not only is he capable of stealing another slam but is it possible for him to climb up the rankings. How good can Roger be this year?

It Must Be Love wrote:I didn't say only losses to Nadal matter.

By the way I was thinking, despite Federer being world number 2, I would still not trade Nadal's year so far with Federer's years so far.
Obviously my opinion, but what do Federer fans think ? Would you trade Nadal's year with Fed's year ?

I assume you're not asking me?

JuliusHMarx wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:I didn't say only losses to Nadal matter.

By the way I was thinking, despite Federer being world number 2, I would still not trade Nadal's year so far with Federer's years so far.
Obviously my opinion, but what do Federer fans think ? Would you trade Nadal's year with Fed's year ?

I assume you're not asking me?

Well it was directed towards Fedal fans, but of course you can answer; if you want to put yourself in the shoes of a fan of any player

It Must Be Love wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:I didn't say only losses to Nadal matter.

By the way I was thinking, despite Federer being world number 2, I would still not trade Nadal's year so far with Federer's years so far.
Obviously my opinion, but what do Federer fans think ? Would you trade Nadal's year with Fed's year ?

I assume you're not asking me?

Well it was directed towards Fedal fans, but of course you can answer; if you want to put yourself in the shoes of a fan of any player

That way lies parody.

Its all about winning slams. Even if Roger finishes number 1 I don't see that being as successful a year as Rafa.

Born Slippy wrote:Its all about winning slams. Even if Roger finishes number 1 I don't see that being as successful a year as Rafa.

Or Stan. Or Cilic. I'm not sure I'm allowed to talk about them am I?

JuliusHMarx wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:I didn't say only losses to Nadal matter.

By the way I was thinking, despite Federer being world number 2, I would still not trade Nadal's year so far with Federer's years so far.
Obviously my opinion, but what do Federer fans think ? Would you trade Nadal's year with Fed's year ?

I assume you're not asking me?

Do we dare ask why, in a season where Nadal has had appendicitis and a damaged wrist, and Federer has been in fine health, you would not trade Federer's year for Nadal's?

Why, when one player is 28 and one is 33, do we feel the need to make comparisons that are not really relevant?

Or, and I suspect this is the case (and Mods feel free to move this post where ever if you wish) you can only really make comparisons of their years with respect to their own individual career achievements?

JHM is exactly right - why does everything always have to be about - or compared to Nadal.

Glad to see after my month long hiatus - nothing has changed.

Johnyjeep wrote:

Do we dare ask why, in a season where Nadal has had appendicitis and a damaged wrist, and Federer has been in fine health, you would not trade Federer's year for Nadal's?

Why, when one player is 28 and one is 33, do we feel the need to make comparisons that are not really relevant?

Or, and I suspect this is the case (and Mods feel free to move this post where ever if you wish) you can only really make comparisons of their years with respect to their own individual career achievements?

JHM is exactly right - why does everything always have to be about - or compared to Nadal.

Glad to see after my month long hiatus - nothing has changed.

No, jump off your high horse.
This thread was about how far Federer could go up in the rankings. Now he has recently gone above Nadal in the rankings- and I think he's above in the 2014 race too.
So I think it's a legitimate question to ask which set of results each fan would prefer for the year. Federer has obtained more ranking points, and as Bogbrush said 'rankings don't lie'- so you could easily build up an argument saying you would prefer the set of results Federer has achieved.
But in my opinion, I would still prefer Nadal's set of results.
(This is independent btw, of other factors such as age as well as injuries etc. I would agree with both your sentiments that: Federer is older than Nadal so would be expected to achieve less, and Nadal has had some injury problems)

JuliusHMarx wrote:
Or Stan. Or Cilic. I'm not sure I'm allowed to talk about them am I?

Yes you are ? No one said you're not allowed to talk about anyone, and anyway even if they did you're the moderator here.

It Must Be Love wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:
Or Stan. Or Cilic. I'm not sure I'm allowed to talk about them am I?

Yes you are ? No one said you're not allowed to talk about anyone, and anyway even if they did you're the moderator here.

Yeah, but I'm an unfair and biased one

JuliusHMarx wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:
Or Stan. Or Cilic. I'm not sure I'm allowed to talk about them am I?

Yes you are ? No one said you're not allowed to talk about anyone, and anyway even if they did you're the moderator here.

Yeah, but I'm an unfair and biased one

I'm not sure why talking about Fed vs Stan would have anything to do with your moderating.

Come to think of it actually, that is a good question, Stan's year or Federer's year (in terms of set of results- independent of external factors) ? Federer has gained more points, higher in the rankings- but Stan has won Aus Open and Monte Carlo.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Born Slippy wrote:Its all about winning slams. Even if Roger finishes number 1 I don't see that being as successful a year as Rafa.

Or Stan. Or Cilic. I'm not sure I'm allowed to talk about them am I?

Cilic is probably a more interesting question. Had Roger had that season then it would look very much like Sampras in 2002! Perhaps he wouldn't have swapped that season even though, ultimately, Cilic has had a more successful year.

If a player won, say, 6 masters, and the WTF and finished No 1, but no slam, would that be more, or less, successful than Cilic?

I think it depends if you're looking long term or short term (and the goals of each player...)
GS tournaments are quite the Graal of Tennis, so if I had just one year, I'd pick the one with the slam as more successful.
Then over a career, I'd probably pick the 6 Masters and WTF: in the case of Fed because he's had many slams already and he stated when his daughter were bron that he wanted them to see him be a champion (so 7 tounrnaments against 1 are more opportunities for that)
And for the slamless player, winning so many Masters and the WTF is very good financially - and puts you in a good position for next year's slams (seeds and all - That's what Murray did )

And re: Rafa's year vs Fed's, I think despite the tempting RG title, Fed would still pick his year. As Fed said, he's very happy about his health, that the troubles from last year are gone etc. and I think he's genuinely saying this. He loves the game and want to play it well in the few years to come, so he wouldn't pick an injury season.

Think Nadal and Federer would trade their year's haul with Djokovic's.

Yeah agree with that except I think Fed would still prefer a season with a slam than one with 6 masters. That season would be like going an athletics season unbeaten but losing the Olympic final.

It Must Be Love wrote:

Johnyjeep wrote:

Do we dare ask why, in a season where Nadal has had appendicitis and a damaged wrist, and Federer has been in fine health, you would not trade Federer's year for Nadal's?

Why, when one player is 28 and one is 33, do we feel the need to make comparisons that are not really relevant?

Or, and I suspect this is the case (and Mods feel free to move this post where ever if you wish) you can only really make comparisons of their years with respect to their own individual career achievements?

JHM is exactly right - why does everything always have to be about - or compared to Nadal.

Glad to see after my month long hiatus - nothing has changed.

No, jump off your high horse.
This thread was about how far Federer could go up in the rankings. Now he has recently gone above Nadal in the rankings- and I think he's above in the 2014 race too.
So I think it's a legitimate question to ask which set of results each fan would prefer for the year. Federer has obtained more ranking points, and as Bogbrush said 'rankings don't lie'- so you could easily build up an argument saying you would prefer the set of results Federer has achieved.
But in my opinion, I would still prefer Nadal's set of results.
(This is independent btw, of other factors such as age as well as injuries etc. I would agree with both your sentiments that: Federer is older than Nadal so would be expected to achieve less, and Nadal has had some injury problems)

I assume because of Nadal's GS this year? As I believe aside from that they have both won 4 titles? So therefore you place greater emphasis on GS's? Which is fair enough.

But so does the ranking system does it not? Unless you believe it does not place enough emphasis on GS? Because as a set of independent results for this year stands - Federer's is more impressive according to the ranking system.

So I ask again, just for the purposes of discussion, why do you believe Nadal's year is more impressive? Is it because he has the GS?

And apologies - my comment was not aimed solely at you. Plus..I like my horse.

JohnyJeep wrote:As I believe aside from that they have both won 4 titles? So therefore you place greater emphasis on GS's? Which is fair enough.

But so does the ranking system does it not? Unless you believe it does not place enough emphasis on GS? Because as a set of independent results for this year stands - Federer's is more impressive according to the ranking system.

Yes, this is what I'm getting at.
Now it's clear Federer has more ranking points this year than Nadal, and it's also true Nadal hasn't entered a few events past Wimbledon because of injury problems.
But despite this, I would still take Nadal's year over Federer's. As you imply, an element of this is that I believe the ATP undervalues slams compared to Masters. The points you get for winning 2 masters is 2000, same as a slam. However I would, and many others too maybe, rate 1 slam over 2 Masters despite them having the same ranking points.

Johnyjeep wrote:Glad to see after my month long hiatus - nothing has changed.

Two new things, a new Moderator, and a GOAT sticky.

It Must Be Love wrote:But despite this, I would still take Nadal's year over Federer's. As you imply, an element of this is that I believe the ATP undervalues slams compared to Masters. The points you get for winning 2 masters is 2000, same as a slam. However I would, and many others too maybe, rate 1 slam over 2 Masters despite them having the same ranking points.

This is a purely subjective exercise. It has no relevance to titles.

As JHM pointed out in 2014, Player X won one slam, player Y won one slam, player Z won one slam. Year vs Career are different, all slam wins are not equal from a specific player's perspective, even if they are the same from a ranking/point perspective.

Do you want RG to be 5K vs AO to 0.75k?

Trading a year is unlikely. I am certain, Nadal would like to trade with Federer's 1st round win over Mayer in Shanghai.

There is immense satisfaction for a player not having missed a slam in 15 years. Does ATP reward any points for that?

I suggest we stay away from player comparisons, as it leads up the GOAT mountain.

laverfan wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:But despite this, I would still take Nadal's year over Federer's. As you imply, an element of this is that I believe the ATP undervalues slams compared to Masters. The points you get for winning 2 masters is 2000, same as a slam. However I would, and many others too maybe, rate 1 slam over 2 Masters despite them having the same ranking points.

This is a purely subjective exercise. It has no relevance to titles.

As JHM pointed out in 2014, Player X won one slam, player Y won one slam, player Z won one slam. Year vs Career are different, all slam wins are not equal from a specific player's perspective, even if they are the same from a ranking/point perspective.

Do you want RG to be 5K vs AO to 0.75k?

Trading a year is unlikely. I am certain, Nadal would like to trade with Federer's 1st round win over Mayer in Shanghai.

There is immense satisfaction for a player not having missed a slam in 15 years. Does ATP reward any points for that?

I suggest we stay away from player comparisons, as it leads up the GOAT mountain.

touche

oh the irony though. How slam count can suddenly elevate one persons achievement/results over another in one season, yet can be so easily dismissed when using this indicator over multiple seasons (say the period of a players career).

I guess time will tell whether I have unwittingly fallen into a trap here.

I agree with a previous posters comment re Federer - I think to get back to No.1 he would have to win AO. Can't see anyone but Djokovic finishing YE No.1. He would need to pretty much not play for the rest of the year.

JohnyJeep wrote:How slam count can suddenly elevate one persons achievement/results over another in one season, yet can be so easily dismissed when using this indicator over multiple seasons (say the period of a players career).

It is one of the main indicators (for me) when judging careers and years; my point was I think it's importance is more than doubles of Masters (even though ATP points have it as just double)

Laverfan wrote:This is a purely subjective exercise. It has no relevance to titles.

It may be subjective, the point I'm trying to make is not everyone will agree that more rankings points = better year.
One of the reasons as I pointed out to JJ, is that I think many fans would agree 1 Slam > 2 Masters, but the points have them as equal.
However I would like to say, I think I like the system as it is, as it means more motivation to have top players playing Masters- we get to see them more

Johnyjeep wrote:I agree with a previous posters comment re Federer - I think to get back to No.1 he would have to win AO. Can't see anyone but Djokovic finishing YE No.1. He would need to pretty much not play for the rest of the year.

The gap is actually relatively small: 990 points with 3,000 on the table (Basel 500 + Paris 1,000 + WTF 1,500).
Would be pretty unusual though to have a #1 who hasn't won a slam. But then again, he got very close at Wimbledon, and played 5 of the 8 Masters 1000 finals so far, so I guess it would be fair.

Johnyjeep wrote:

Do we dare ask why, in a season where Nadal has had appendicitis and a damaged wrist, and Federer has been in fine health, you would not trade Federer's year for Nadal's?

Don't forget Nadal's bad back without which he might have won a double career slam. Although of course we will never know if he would have beaten Stan for the 13th consecutive time even if he hadn't suffered his back problems in the warm up I don't think anyone is doubting that Federer has been his usual robust self this year. Don't forget he also managed to pop out some twins.

Johnyjeep wrote:

Glad to see after my month long hiatus - nothing has changed.

So you only come here when it's interesting

laverfan wrote:

Trading a year is unlikely. I am certain, Nadal would like to trade with Federer's 1st round win over Mayer in Shanghai.

I doubt it Nadal was not winning Shanghai this year whatever happened. He also wasn't winning Beijing as I believe he was in hospital getting treatment for his appendicitis on the day of the final. But maybe if he could trade it for his third round loss at Wimbledon?

hawkeye wrote:

Johnyjeep wrote:

Do we dare ask why, in a season where Nadal has had appendicitis and a damaged wrist, and Federer has been in fine health, you would not trade Federer's year for Nadal's?

Don't forget Nadal's bad back without which he might have won a double career slam. Although of course we will never know if he would have beaten Stan for the 13th consecutive time even if he hadn't suffered his back problems in the warm up I don't think anyone is doubting that Federer has been his usual robust self this year. Don't forget he also managed to pop out some twins.

Eh? What has your reply got to do with my comment that you have quoted? I haven't forgotten anything. Certainly not anything that I wasn't in any way discussing.

IMBL fair enough. Though I think you will appreciate - and I would guess most observers would agree with me (see how easy it is to throw that line around!!) - that the rankings accurately reflect the success or failure of each players season relative to each other and this is the barometer used by most.

Ah my bad HE - his bad back at the start of the year? Was that this year? How time flies.

Still, he was being soundly beaten before the evidence presented itself so visually.

If over, say, 60% of fans agree with something, it is still possible for it to be controversial?
Surely the opposite view would be the controversial one?
Just thinking aloud.

Agreed JHM. Though I'd love to know what possess someone to make such a claim in the first place. As a self-appointed spokesperson for the masses.

Johnyjeep wrote:Agreed JHM. Though I'd love to know what possess someone to make such a claim in the first place. As a self-appointed spokesperson for the masses.

True JJ. I think everyone would agree us on that point.

hawkeye wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

The height of Roger's flying depends upon Nadal. In the end, everything is Nadal, and Nadal is everything.

Ha ha! Julius but there is more than a little truth in what you say. Of course the height of Rogers flying is dependent on his ability to beat players at the very top. Djokovic has limited his flying height too but hardly to the extent that Nadal has because 23-10 is brutal. Nadal to Federer is like a glass ceiling and until recently it was only at the WTF that he had more than a small chance of breaking through. So to meet him at crucial times last year did affect his year. Meeting him at Indian Wells on his return in the quarters was particularly cruel and then again at the same stage in Cincinnati. When those draws came out I was furious. What were the draw fixes thinking! I believe they were also due to meet in the quarters at Wimbledon? Federer bombing out just after Nadal lost to Darcis was a big lost opportunity. Maybe he got carried away laughing at Nadal's 2nd early loss at Wimbledon? (For those who don't know Federer said he laughed for ten minutes when Nadal lost to Rosol in 2012)

Both this year and last year Federer has suffered unexpected losses. In fact he was in a tricky situation in the first round of Shanghai. He's continued to bring the sparkle out on occasions though but what has made the difference are just a few things. Nadal not being around is definitely one. He has even said so himself.

You keep talking about the Indian Wells match-  Federer was clearly in extreme pain during that match. That match was all about the back, and beyond brief periods where he recovered some form- Fed has been clear that from the point 2 rounds earlier where he hurt himself and going forward for the rest of the year, he could not keep his normal level of fitness  and training up.  The loss of confidence has nothing to do with Nadal.  

It's pretty clear that at this point when you see that Federer reached #1 in 2012 (during the full 52 week rolling period where Nadal was healthy and did not miss time), then fell steeply in 2013, but once healthy has been right there in the running as the best player in the world all year- that 2013 was an injury anomaly. He chose to play through it and take some H2H losses vs. stop and rest like some others do- which was prob a mistake.

This year- in tournaments off of clay- Federer has made it farther and done better than a healthy Nadal 3 out of the 5 tournaments they entered together.   Nadal has never once in his career defended a non clay tournament so we can safely assume based on that and what he did this year while healthy off of clay that he wasn't going to dominate those tournaments.  Based on his big clay points from RG- Nadal would have held Federer off for #2 if he had played a full schedule, but you can't say Federer's success was based on Nadal not being around.  Federer was doing quite well when Nadal was playing and healthy. Nadal would not have beaten Djoko on the Shanghai court, but Federer was able to.  Federer deserves his ranking and over the whole year- he has been the 2nd best player.

Perhaps we need a SGOTY (Second greatest of the year) sticky. Djoko fans can rest easy - he's the best.

First of all id like an emote of a goat stuck to the ground for a sticky GOAT. Secondly this is all moving goalposts. To Rafa and Fed, its all about the slams for the most part, Rafas RG is probably more important to him than anything. Roger will toast a great year but will still be kicking himself for not winning Wimby, or taking the gift of a draw at the US

All in favour say " ikki ikki ikki ikki kabang zoom wwwoooopp."

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Johnyjeep wrote:Agreed JHM. Though I'd love to know what possess someone to make such a claim in the first place. As a self-appointed spokesperson for the masses.

True JJ. I think everyone would agree us on that point.

Hehe

I think if you've never won a slam then 1 slam beats 6 masters and year end no 1 but if you're already recognized as a slam champion then 6 masters and year end no 1 is a better achievement. FIRST slam is huge.

Anyone that wins 6 masters and year end no 1 but never won a slam is going to have to face constant questioning and analysis of an unpleasant sort about their lacking fitness or mentality.

Henman Bill wrote:I think if you've never won a slam then 1 slam beats 6 masters and year end no 1 but if you're already recognized as a slam champion then 6 masters and year end no 1 is a better achievement. FIRST slam is huge.

Anyone that wins 6 masters and year end no 1 but never won a slam is going to have to face constant questioning and analysis of an unpleasant sort about their lacking fitness or mentality.

Good point, the context of what each player has achieved so far is important too.

It Must Be Love wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Johnyjeep wrote:Agreed JHM. Though I'd love to know what possess someone to make such a claim in the first place. As a self-appointed spokesperson for the masses.

True JJ. I think everyone would agree us on that point.

Hehe

It Must Be Love wrote:

Henman Bill wrote:I think if you've never won a slam then 1 slam beats 6 masters and year end no 1 but if you're already recognized as a slam champion then 6 masters and year end no 1 is a better achievement. FIRST slam is huge.

Anyone that wins 6 masters and year end no 1 but never won a slam is going to have to face constant questioning and analysis of an unpleasant sort about their lacking fitness or mentality.

Good point, the context of what each player has achieved so far is important too.

laverfan wrote:Player X won one slam, player Y won one slam, player Z won one slam. Year vs Career are different, all slam wins are not equal from a specific player's perspective, even if they are the same from a ranking/point perspective.

I like HB's line better than my own.

temporary21 wrote:Roger will toast a great year but will still be kicking himself for not winning Wimby, or taking the gift of a draw at the US

Ironic that the two Wimby finalists this year, lost in the SFs of USO.

temporary21 wrote:Roger will toast a great year but will still be kicking himself for not winning Wimby, or taking the gift of a draw at the US

I think this sums up Fed's year very well - he's shown that he can still compete at the highest level (very encouraging at his age and following the apparent decline of 2013), but in terms of his career legacy the only things that will matter are the failures to win Wimbledon and USO when the opportunity appeared to be there, and (potentially) winning the Davis Cup.

Winning MS level events (when you already have Fed's record) is good for the confidence, but won't put any more gloss on Fed's extraordinary career record, while getting back to #1 would be nice but hardly essential. Becoming the oldest ever ATP #1 would be barely a footnote to all his other records.

I think regaining #1 would be seismic given his age and 2013. Yes, he'd have preferred a Slam (which would made #1 highly probable) but no way could regaining #1 at this stage of things be diminished.

Something interesting to tell the girls when he got home from work.

Winning a slam has been a herculean effort, no matter who is on the other side. There si no such thing as an easy draw. Ask Nadal, or Federer himself. One does get a bit lucky facing Scoville Jenkins or Devin Britton at times.

At least he is playing and is not afraid of losing a match at 33+, he has enough to have a comfortable retirement.

It Must Be Love wrote:

Henman Bill wrote:I think if you've never won a slam then 1 slam beats 6 masters and year end no 1 but if you're already recognized as a slam champion then 6 masters and year end no 1 is a better achievement. FIRST slam is huge.

Anyone that wins 6 masters and year end no 1 but never won a slam is going to have to face constant questioning and analysis of an unpleasant sort about their lacking fitness or mentality.

Good point, the context of what each player has achieved so far is important too.

laverfan wrote:Player X won one slam, player Y won one slam, player Z won one slam. Year vs Career are different, all slam wins are not equal from a specific player's perspective, even if they are the same from a ranking/point perspective.

I would say if you have 17 slams and your biggest rival has 14 or vice versa then perhaps adding to your slam count becomes quite important. Funny no one puts as much emphasis on 27/22. Well at least I think it's 27/22 because it's not a number that's thrown about anymore.

It Must Be Love wrote:I didn't say only losses to Nadal matter.

By the way I was thinking, despite Federer being world number 2, I would still not trade Nadal's year so far with Federer's years so far.
Obviously my opinion, but what do Federer fans think ? Would you trade Nadal's year with Fed's year ?

Mehhh...btw Soderling asked if he could be a part of the trade?