Andy Murray - The World No 1

First topic message reminder :

With Milos Raonic pulling out injured of his semi against Andy in Paris it means Andy Murray has scaled the heights to reach the World No.1 ranking.

Andy has been at No 2 for so long and at last he is at the very top. All that hard graft, the hours of training, the years of toiling and competing, the big wins and hard losses but final Andy's moment has arrived.

His fellow pros are lining up to hail the new world No 1 after Djokovic. Great times Andy. Well done.

Yes it's not a good match up because their joint tennis is a little dull due to being similar and grinding. However, Djokovic seemed somewhat incapable of grinding (rallying long) tonight when to be honest he's usually the better player. I was surprised by the result but less surprised that preRG Djokovic failed to show up. There's something going on with him for sure. His tennis was lacklustre and error strewn, so a tired Murray wasn't really exploited/tested.

Oddly enough they showed the 2012 final between Federer and Djokovic yesterday and to be honest the quality and level on display was far higher. I do miss Federer and Nadal being around because they bring something dynamic/unexpected. In fact I fear for the game when the big 3 have gone as there's little flair/natural talent coming though at the highest level. Yes Raonic is doing well and others are climbing but they are nowhere near the ability of the declining Big 3. Have to say I'm rapidly losing interest in watching the pro game. Yes Murray has done very well this year and deserves all the plaudits for finishing the strongest but let's not kid ourselves, it's been amongst a strongly depleted/deflated field. Even Kyrgios has gone AWOL, Stan largely checked out too after USO. Federer/Nadal being away does make the tour feel less 3 dimensional. Then there's what's happened to Djokovic again...how can someone fall off a tennis cliff so quickly relative to where he was? 8000 point lead post-RG!  

I hope that some sparkle can return next year otherwise I'll just be playing the game, not watching, and remembering great matches of yesteryear.

Funnily enough, Djokovic does have a slim chance to get no 1 back after the Australian Open. He would certainly need to win the tournament, and he would also need Murray to crash out very early, and he might also need another tournament win just before or just after the Australian Open. I haven't crunched the numbers so that may not be spot on but looks about right.

However after that Djokovic has 2000 points to defend at IW and Miami while Murray had 90 to defend!

Odds are if Murray doesn't get any injuries he is no 1 to Wimbledon.

2012 was that the one where they were both at the net and Federer hit that spin cross court forehand while running backwards at a key moment, perhaps in a tiebreak? You thought he might win the match at that point, but it wasn't to be. Federer couldn't quite get over the line for year end no 1 in 2012.

I have to say I agree with you. Up until the key break in the first set today I was a bit bored, and I do think tennis needs something new. Federer and Nadal can't help anymore. Even if they got back to something close to their best, which is unlikely, they wouldn't be able to offer anything we haven't seen 50 times before.

We need a new player in the Murray-Djokovic dymanic, perhaps a young player to mix things up and create a better match up. The Djokovic-Federer, Federer-Nadal and maybe Federer-Murray offer better match ups, Murray-Djokovic are too similar, or maybe we've just seen them play too many times. Time for one of the youngsters to go up a level.

It doesn't seem likely for next year though, so I would anticipate a no more than average year.

In theory I might switch my allegiance to the WTA if they could improve, but in practice I'll probably just watch less tennis than I used to.

Some number crunching for HB.

Murray's lead at the end of the year, once the DC points drop off, will be 630 points I think. It was 130 before yesterday, and he earned 500 more by winning. At the AO, Djokovic defends the full 2000 while Murray defends 1200. A semi is 720 (drop off of 480 from a final), so Murray would need to crash out in the QFs or before and Djokovic to retain his title to lose n°1 at that point. Another option is Djokovic winning one of the ATP 250 warm-ups, with Murray either not playing one or losing SF or before, with Djokovic then winnings the AO and Murray losing in the SF.

Then there's Dubai, where Djokovic lost earlier (I think QFs) with an eye infection, so he could potentially make up some points there, though Murray didn't play between the AO and Indian Wells due to the birth of his daughter, and I'd expect him to fit in a tournament there (dropping Vienna or Beijing at the end of the year).

Murray then defends very very little at IW and Miami, while Djokovic defends full points then. On balance you'd expect Murray to increase his lead before the clay court season starts, simply because he has so much more scope for improvement.

Regarding the possibility of anyone else grabbing the n°1 spot, it simply looks very unlikely. Murray, post Wimbledon included, has earned:
- 1 slam = 2000 points
- 1 WTF unbeaten = 1500
- 2 Masters = 2000
- 2 ATP 500 = 1000
- 1 Masters final = 600
- 1 slam QF = 360
Total = 7460 (as HB says, it should really be more but for the Olympics issue)

That's significantly more points than the guys below him in the rankings have earned in the whole season.

There's about 10,000-11,000 points on offer in total pre-Wimbledon for the big guys (a realistic maximum of 11,250 includes an AO warm-up, Rotherdam and Dubai, Barcelona and a Wimbledon warm-up as well as all the Masters and slams, but that seems a lot, 10,000 would be one of Rotherdam and Dubai, and a Wimbledon warm-up). Obviously Murray could have a very poor first half of the year, and someone go on a bit of a tear (it's possible if Feds or Nadal come back somewhere near their best for instance, and Djokovic continues to struggle), but at the moment you'd say that Murray looks a more than decent bet to hold n°1 at least until Wimbledon.

As well as the battle for number one, the form/fitness of The Missing (Rafa and Rog) could be intriguing in 2017. You could argue that these two are more likely to beat Djoko at the moment than Andy.
I think it's more likely that Rafa, of the two, will make a stronger comeback as he's not been out for so long and is five years younger than Rog. For Federer, no one, least of all the Swiss, has any real idea how he'll feel/play/succeed in 2017.
As with all those who have been out injured for a while, he'll just want to get through the first match back without anything hurting. He can look to del Potro for inspiration, but then again, the Argentinian is a lot younger than Rog.

I think Novak is already defending 250 points pre Oz MfC? Seem to remember him dismantling Rafa in the Doha final?

His room to gain would be by playing Rotterdam and doing better at Dubai.

Congrats to Murray and his fans.

Amazing effort when you think how far back he was halfway through the season.

As for Djokovic - far too early to suggest that his time winning slams is over. May not continue to dominate but still expect him to roll along and pick up a slam or two next year - who's gonna beat him? Only Murray and sometimes Stan.

I wrote a post earlier on in the year about how Djokovic was dominating without having to play stellar tennis. I think that point's been vindicated even more by recent events. Champion in Toronto, finalist at the USO and the WTF despite looking more shaky than he has done in years.

The lack of serious competition is now just bizarre. We're having to look at the teenagers to find the next being thing.

sirfredperry wrote:As well as the battle for number one, the form/fitness of The Missing (Rafa and Rog) could be intriguing in 2017. You could argue that these two are more likely to beat Djoko at the moment than Andy.
  I think it's more likely that Rafa, of the two, will make a stronger comeback as he's not been out for so long and is five years younger than Rog. For Federer, no one, least of all the Swiss, has any real idea how he'll feel/play/succeed in 2017.
As with all those who have been out injured for a while, he'll just want to get through the first match back without anything hurting. He can look to del Potro for inspiration, but then again, the Argentinian is a lot younger than Rog.

The interesting part is they are likely to be seeded 9 and 17 in Australia and DP is obviously still unseeded completely (although he might squeeze in with a 250 beforehand). Someone could get a shocking draw.

Hard to say who will have the stronger comeback. I suspect Fed though. It's easier to come back with a serve-based game and his last four slam results are F, F, SF, SF so he wasn't far off before the injury break. In contrast, Rafa hasn't made a SF at a slam for nearly 3 years and his game hasn't looked truly competitive for a while. His game looked severely lacking before the injury problems.

Born Slippy wrote:I think Novak is already defending 250 points pre Oz MfC? Seem to remember him dismantling Rafa in the Doha final?

His room to gain would be by playing Rotterdam and doing better at Dubai.

You're right, I'd forgotten that.

B Slippy: "Rafa hasn't made a SF at a slam for nearly 3 years".
Gosh, didn't realise it was as bad as that. And there was me predicting at the end of 2015 that Rafa would finish 2016 in the top two.

Still think he may have another French title in him, but wouldn't like to put money on it. I certainly don't think that this is the end of Djoko's GS-winning run, either. Rog, for example, had a fairly average 2013 but came storming back in 2014 and 2015.

Born Slippy wrote:

sirfredperry wrote:As well as the battle for number one, the form/fitness of The Missing (Rafa and Rog) could be intriguing in 2017. You could argue that these two are more likely to beat Djoko at the moment than Andy.
  I think it's more likely that Rafa, of the two, will make a stronger comeback as he's not been out for so long and is five years younger than Rog. For Federer, no one, least of all the Swiss, has any real idea how he'll feel/play/succeed in 2017.
As with all those who have been out injured for a while, he'll just want to get through the first match back without anything hurting. He can look to del Potro for inspiration, but then again, the Argentinian is a lot younger than Rog.

The interesting part is they are likely to be seeded 9 and 17 in Australia and DP is obviously still unseeded completely (although he might squeeze in with a 250 beforehand). Someone could get a shocking draw.

Hard to say who will have the stronger comeback. I suspect Fed though. It's easier to come back with a serve-based game and his last four slam results are F, F, SF, SF so he wasn't far off before the injury break. In contrast, Rafa hasn't made a SF at a slam for nearly 3 years and his game hasn't looked truly competitive for a while. His game looked severely lacking before the injury problems.

For the top players, there's not much difference in players being ranked 8 or 9, or indeed 16 or 17. For instance, seeds 1-4 draw seeds 13-16 in R4, seeds 1-8 draw seeds 25-32 in R3 (I think). So Murray or Djokovic can't meet Feds before R4, and Rafa before the QF. Obviously R4 is early for Feds if he's on his game, but given how little he played this year it's hardly surprising he's ranked outside the top 12. There is however the possibility of a Fedal R3 match...

Interesting comments all, thanks.

Congrats to Murray , his team and supporters for a great year and to finish as the new year end no.1.

While No.1 was a great achievement, year end no.1 is a phenomenal achievement and icing on an already incredible CV.

Born Slippy wrote:

sirfredperry wrote:As well as the battle for number one, the form/fitness of The Missing (Rafa and Rog) could be intriguing in 2017. You could argue that these two are more likely to beat Djoko at the moment than Andy.
  I think it's more likely that Rafa, of the two, will make a stronger comeback as he's not been out for so long and is five years younger than Rog. For Federer, no one, least of all the Swiss, has any real idea how he'll feel/play/succeed in 2017.
As with all those who have been out injured for a while, he'll just want to get through the first match back without anything hurting. He can look to del Potro for inspiration, but then again, the Argentinian is a lot younger than Rog.

The interesting part is they are likely to be seeded 9 and 17 in Australia and DP is obviously still unseeded completely (although he might squeeze in with a 250 beforehand). Someone could get a shocking draw.

Hard to say who will have the stronger comeback. I suspect Fed though. It's easier to come back with a serve-based game and his last four slam results are F, F, SF, SF so he wasn't far off before the injury break. In contrast, Rafa hasn't made a SF at a slam for nearly 3 years and his game hasn't looked truly competitive for a while. His game looked severely lacking before the injury problems.

I think Federer has a big opportunity for no 18 if Djokovic doesn't recover to his best. I expect Murray will dominate, but he's always been more likely for an early slam exit when playing well (see Nishikori at USO) than the others. Plus Federer has fared better against Murray than Djokovic in recent years. Wimbledon & USO are chances for 18 if he recovers well and the form of others stays the same.

Rafa was having a good clay season until injury this year. I'd expect him to be in the mix with Murray & Djokovic for RG if he returns to his form of this season.

I wouldn't call a QF an early slam exit. The last slam he entered and failed to get to the second week is now six years ago. Nobody else in the men's game at the moment can boast such a stat. Roger, Rafa and Novak have all had earlier exits (than second week) at slams in the last six years.

CaledonianCraig wrote:I wouldn't call a QF an early slam exit. The last slam he entered and failed to get to the second week is now six years ago. Nobody else in the men's game at the moment can boast such a stat. Roger, Rafa and Novak have all had earlier exits (than second week) at slams in the last six years.

Whilst it wasn't an early exit, it was unexpected, he was probably favourite for the tournament and hasn't lost since. Djokovic had similar at Wimbledon, but hasn't really recovered his form since.

Roger & Rafa's early exits have generally come when they are in bad form/decline.

Guest82 wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:I wouldn't call a QF an early slam exit. The last slam he entered and failed to get to the second week is now six years ago. Nobody else in the men's game at the moment can boast such a stat. Roger, Rafa and Novak have all had earlier exits (than second week) at slams in the last six years.

Whilst it wasn't an early exit, it was unexpected, he was probably favourite for the tournament and hasn't lost since.  Djokovic had similar at Wimbledon, but hasn't really recovered his form since.

Roger & Rafa's early exits have generally come when they are in bad form/decline.

Rafa's early losses came when he was still winning slams after those early losses. Roger as well has been in good enough nick to reach several slam finals AFTER early losses.

Wawrinka will win more majors than choker Murray. Had it not been a cupcake draw at Wimbledon, the Scottish loser would still be on 2 majors.

Jermaine2015 wrote:Wawrinka will win more majors than choker Murray. Had it not been a cupcake draw at Wimbledon, the Scottish loser would still be on 2 majors.

Would that be the same Wawrinka who can't even get into the top 3 in this new weak era? Who is 7000+ points behind Murray?
This is hurting, isn't it, J15?

CaledonianCraig wrote:

Guest82 wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:I wouldn't call a QF an early slam exit. The last slam he entered and failed to get to the second week is now six years ago. Nobody else in the men's game at the moment can boast such a stat. Roger, Rafa and Novak have all had earlier exits (than second week) at slams in the last six years.

Whilst it wasn't an early exit, it was unexpected, he was probably favourite for the tournament and hasn't lost since.  Djokovic had similar at Wimbledon, but hasn't really recovered his form since.

Roger & Rafa's early exits have generally come when they are in bad form/decline.

Rafa's early losses came when he was still winning slams after those early losses. Roger as well has been in good enough nick to reach several slam finals AFTER early losses.

Rafa stopped being competitive at Wimbledon years ago. Then since he has entered his 'decline' hasn't done well at majors outside of RG.

Federer has only really done well at USO & Wimbledon in recent years. I'd not class too many of his losses as that surprising in slams (bar Stakhovsky, where he was injured and Seppi)

My point is that, in my opinion, Murray will dominate the slams for the next year or so. BUT, again, in my opinion, he will throw in an early loss or two somewhere along the line. When Djokovic & Federer were dominant this didn't seem to happen.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Jermaine2015 wrote:Wawrinka will win more majors than choker Murray. Had it not been a cupcake draw at Wimbledon, the Scottish loser would still be on 2 majors.

Would that be the same Wawrinka who can't even get into the top 3 in this new weak era? Who is 7000+ points behind Murray?
This is hurting, isn't it, J15?

Same Wawrinka that is the only man to beat Djokovic in Australia in the last 6 years? Same Wawrinka would beat the #1 and #2 to win his first major. Same Wawrinka who beat Federer and Djokovic to win his French Open? Same Wawrinka who beat Djokovic for a third time in majors to claim his US Open.

All of these achievements have never been matched by mediocre Murray

Jermaine2015 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Jermaine2015 wrote:Wawrinka will win more majors than choker Murray. Had it not been a cupcake draw at Wimbledon, the Scottish loser would still be on 2 majors.

Would that be the same Wawrinka who can't even get into the top 3 in this new weak era? Who is 7000+ points behind Murray?
This is hurting, isn't it, J15?

Same Wawrinka that is the only man to beat Djokovic in Australia in the last 6 years? Same Wawrinka would beat the #1 and #2 to win his first major. Same Wawrinka who beat Federer and Djokovic to win his French Open? Same Wawrinka who beat Djokovic for a third time in majors to claim his US Open.

All of these achievements have never been matched by mediocre Murray

Yes, certainly Stan has done some things Murray hasn't. Murray has done more than Stan overall though. That's just the way it is. Mediocre Murray actually holds a 10-7 H2H lead over Stan as well.
I take it you're not happy?

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Jermaine2015 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Jermaine2015 wrote:Wawrinka will win more majors than choker Murray. Had it not been a cupcake draw at Wimbledon, the Scottish loser would still be on 2 majors.

Would that be the same Wawrinka who can't even get into the top 3 in this new weak era? Who is 7000+ points behind Murray?
This is hurting, isn't it, J15?

Same Wawrinka that is the only man to beat Djokovic in Australia in the last 6 years? Same Wawrinka would beat the #1 and #2 to win his first major. Same Wawrinka who beat Federer and Djokovic to win his French Open? Same Wawrinka who beat Djokovic for a third time in majors to claim his US Open.

All of these achievements have never been matched by mediocre Murray

Yes, certainly Stan has done some things Murray hasn't. Murray has done more than Stan overall though. That's just the way it is. Mediocre Murray actually holds a 10-7 H2H lead over Stan as well.
I take it you're not happy?

3 from 3 in slam finals is a damn sight better than 3 from 11...

Whenever anyone talks about Federer, Nadal or Djokovic first thing that springs up is 17, 14 and 12 major titles. The common fan on the street couldn't give a damn about Masters 1000s or any other titles.

Well, yes, that's why everyone rates Federer, Nadal & Djokovic higher than Murray. Would have thought that was obvious. Fact is though, that Murray is currently the World No. 1, and you seem rather upset by that.

3 slams + 8 finals is actually better than, say, 3 slams and 8 semi-finals (not that Stan has 8 semis), so on pretty much every metric available, Murray is better than Stan.

JuliusHMarx wrote:Well, yes, that's why everyone rates Federer, Nadal & Djokovic higher than Murray. Would have thought that was obvious. Fact is though, that Murray is currently the World No. 1, and you seem rather upset by that.

3 slams + 8 finals is actually better than, say, 3 slams and 8 semi-finals (not that Stan has 8 semis), so on pretty much every metric available, Murray is better than Stan.

Apart from getting in done in major finals...which is what it's all about

It isn't what it is all about or else Stan would be No 1 which he isn't and isn't very likely to ever be.

You must be smoking some strong dope if you think Stan would not swap his career stats for Andy's.

Career Titles:

Murray 44 Wawrinka 15

Slam Titles:

Murray 3 Wawrinka 3

Slam Finals:

Murray 11 Wawrinka 3

Head-to-Head:

Murray 10 Wawrinka 7

ATP Match Wins:

Murray 630 (Win Rate 78.36%) Wawrinka 438 (Win Rate 63.85%)

And we won't even go down the other facts and stats route as it is all too one-sided.

Craig loves this nonsensical stats. Players are judged on majors. Murray has no bottle.

No one comes out with Federer has 7 Halle titles or 5 Basle titles...

There was an interesting post a few months back (forgive me, I can't remember the author) which said players start declining after chalking up around 850 matches.
Murray is now just past 800. Will he, I wonder, also fall foul of this interesting stat?

Jermaine2015 wrote:Craig loves this nonsensical stats. Players are judged on majors. Murray has no bottle.

Murray has had a lot more success at majors than Stan. That's not a judgment, that's simply factual. In judgement terms, if you are judged purely on winning, then they are equal. If judged on losing, then Stan comes out far worse - he frequently loses his bottle in the earlier rounds.

Remember the old Top Trump cards? If they did those in tennis players then give me the Andy card any day over the Stan card.

sirfredperry wrote:There was an interesting post a few months back (forgive me, I can't remember the author) which said players start declining after chalking up around 850 matches.
  Murray is now just past 800. Will he, I wonder, also fall foul of this interesting stat?

That was lydian who posted that thread up sirfredperry.

CaledonianCraig wrote:Remember the old Top Trump cards? If they did those in tennis players then give me the Andy card any day over the Stan card.

'old'? They still make them!

CaledonianCraig wrote:Remember the old Top Trump cards? If they did those in tennis players then give me the Andy card any day over the Stan card.

Yeah I remember them Murray's choking ranking was 99

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Jermaine2015 wrote:Craig loves this nonsensical stats. Players are judged on majors. Murray has no bottle.

Murray has had a lot more success at majors than Stan. That's not a judgment, that's simply factual. In judgement terms, if you are judged purely on winning, then they are equal. If judged on losing, then Stan comes out far worse - he frequently loses his bottle in the earlier rounds.

Again who claims getting humped in numerous slam finals is a career achievement?

JuliusHMarx wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:Remember the old Top Trump cards? If they did those in tennis players then give me the Andy card any day over the Stan card.

'old'? They still make them!

Thought they did. Been around many years now.

Jermaine2015 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Jermaine2015 wrote:Craig loves this nonsensical stats. Players are judged on majors. Murray has no bottle.

Murray has had a lot more success at majors than Stan. That's not a judgment, that's simply factual. In judgement terms, if you are judged purely on winning, then they are equal. If judged on losing, then Stan comes out far worse - he frequently loses his bottle in the earlier rounds.

Again who claims getting humped in numerous slam finals is a career achievement?

I have to admit, I've never lost in a slam final. My tennis career is better than Murray's!

Jermaine2015 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Jermaine2015 wrote:Craig loves this nonsensical stats. Players are judged on majors. Murray has no bottle.

Murray has had a lot more success at majors than Stan. That's not a judgment, that's simply factual. In judgement terms, if you are judged purely on winning, then they are equal. If judged on losing, then Stan comes out far worse - he frequently loses his bottle in the earlier rounds.

Again who claims getting humped in numerous slam finals is a career achievement?

So what you're saying is that being 2nd out of 128 players in an event is something to be ashamed of?

djlovesyou wrote:

Jermaine2015 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Jermaine2015 wrote:Craig loves this nonsensical stats. Players are judged on majors. Murray has no bottle.

Murray has had a lot more success at majors than Stan. That's not a judgment, that's simply factual. In judgement terms, if you are judged purely on winning, then they are equal. If judged on losing, then Stan comes out far worse - he frequently loses his bottle in the earlier rounds.

Again who claims getting humped in numerous slam finals is a career achievement?

So what you're saying is that being 2nd out of 128 players in an event is something to be ashamed of?

Yep. Finishing joint 33rd is far more impressive!

JuliusHMarx wrote:

djlovesyou wrote:

Jermaine2015 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Jermaine2015 wrote:Craig loves this nonsensical stats. Players are judged on majors. Murray has no bottle.

Murray has had a lot more success at majors than Stan. That's not a judgment, that's simply factual. In judgement terms, if you are judged purely on winning, then they are equal. If judged on losing, then Stan comes out far worse - he frequently loses his bottle in the earlier rounds.

Again who claims getting humped in numerous slam finals is a career achievement?

So what you're saying is that being 2nd out of 128 players in an event is something to be ashamed of?

Yep. Finishing joint 33rd is far more impressive!

It's an interesting concept really.

If Stan gets knocked out in the 1st round in all 4 next year and Murray loses in 4 finals, Stan actually improves his slam record considerably over Murray.

Going on Jermaine's grounds it is better that those on the Challenger Tour get knocked out in slam qualifying rounds than reach the second, third or fourth round of a slam.

Congratulations to Murray on a fighting ATP #1. (especially after the Raonic match).

Remaining top until merely the end of the 2017 AO will put Murray reasonably high up the list of the all-time weeks-at-number-one table. Bottom of the list, with just the one week as numero uno, is Pat Rafter. But any mention of the Australian two-time GS winner can always be prefaced with the magic words: "Former world number one."

Fantastic effort from Andy to come through the matches against Nishi and Raonic - wasn't at his best, probably unsurprisingly because of the volume of tennis he's played recently.

Seriously, if you look at his form from the start of the clay season, he's been pretty sensational:
SF, F, W, F, W, W, (W*), F, QF, W, W, W, W, W

*Olympics, so no ATP points.

Only really the USO that sticks out as a disappointment over the whole period.

It's interesting that he has reached #1 courtesy of winning 3 MS 500s while Novak only has 340 points from his optional tournaments. I really don't understand why most of the top players don't push their rankings up by targeting the right ones of these events...

Looking forward, if we assume similar schedules for the first part of next year (and I wonder if Andy might add Dubai or Rotterdam in, as he won't be on paternity leave), it's encouraging for Andy that he could increase his lead:

Early season (to Miami):
Andy is defending 1290 out of a possible 4000 on his schedule (and possibly 4500 if he adds Dubai)
Novak is defending 4340 out of 4750.
Djokovic seriously needs to rediscover his form, otherwise the gap could become very substantial. If Andy wins the AO, there's at least a 1600 point swing and the gap would be out to 2000, and either of the MS 1000 events would be a swing of nearly 1400 even if Djoko makes the final.

Clay:
Andy defending 3160 out of a possible 5000
Novak defending 3610 out of a possible 5000
Obviously a big factor here is if Nadal is back and in something like his best form, as if so both points hauls will decrease, but other than MC, I don' t think Novak has much scope for improving his points. The gap may close with Andy failing to defend some of his, but Andy should have enough of a buffer to still be top until Wimbledon at least.

I don't think there is any doubt at this point that Murray will be number one until Wimbledon. Djokovic simply has too many points to defend and Murray is in great form.

I suppose the only factor that could change this is the unknown after the off season. There is of course a slight chance that come the new year, Murray's momentum and level could drop off and Novak could improve (he can hardly get worse!!) but even allowing for that I can see Murray ruling the roost until the summer.

It would require Murray to have a very poor first 6 months of the season and I just cannot see that happening as Andy has always been consistent. Novak really needs to apply himself straight off the bat or he will fall well behind in raking points.

Murray will be dreading the 2nd half of the year though, massive points to defend. Shows how impressive djokovic has been in recent years as he has had to consistently defend huge points each year, amazing consistency. That is probably what makes his current slump so hard to digest, you forget these guys are human!

sirfredperry wrote:There was an interesting post a few months back (forgive me, I can't remember the author) which said players start declining after chalking up around 850 matches.
  Murray is now just past 800. Will he, I wonder, also fall foul of this interesting stat?

I think Murray will dominate this season...then start to decline. That seems to fit in roughly with this concept.

slashermcguirk wrote:I don't think there is any doubt at this point that Murray will be number one until Wimbledon. Djokovic simply has too many points to defend and Murray is in great form.

I suppose the only factor that could change this is the unknown after the off season. There is of course a slight chance that come the new year, Murray's momentum and level could drop off and Novak could improve (he can hardly get worse!!) but even allowing for that I can see Murray ruling the roost until the summer.

It would require Murray to have a very poor first 6 months of the season and I just cannot see that happening as Andy has always been consistent. Novak really needs to apply himself straight off the bat or he will fall well behind in raking points.

Murray will be dreading the 2nd half of the year though, massive points to defend. Shows how impressive djokovic has been in recent years as he has had to consistently defend huge points each year, amazing consistency. That is probably what makes his current slump so hard to digest, you forget these guys are human!

Even if Djokovic were to repeat his 2015 season, it's doubtful he would take back no 1 before Wimbledon.

Ultimately, I doubt Andy will be that bothered about defending number 1. If he can get half a year at number 1 he's pretty high up the list and, obviously, he isn't going to challenge those at the top.

The important thing for him next year is getting more slams won. At the moment, 3 slams is entirely out of kilter with most of his other achievements. If he can somehow double that over the next couple of years then I think that would be a fair reflection of his long term standing in the game.

Born Slippy wrote:Ultimately, I doubt Andy will be that bothered about defending number 1. If he can get half a year at number 1 he's pretty high up the list and, obviously, he isn't going to challenge those at the top.

The important thing for him next year is getting more slams won. At the moment, 3 slams is entirely out of kilter with most of his other achievements. If he can somehow double that over the next couple of years then I think that would be a fair reflection of his long term standing in the game.

Totally agree on everything there.

Born Slippy wrote:Ultimately, I doubt Andy will be that bothered about defending number 1. If he can get half a year at number 1 he's pretty high up the list and, obviously, he isn't going to challenge those at the top.

The important thing for him next year is getting more slams won. At the moment, 3 slams is entirely out of kilter with most of his other achievements. If he can somehow double that over the next couple of years then I think that would be a fair reflection of his long term standing in the game.

I'd be amazed if he doesn't win at least 2 next year. He's got to be very warm favourite for Wimbledon. Plus at least joint favourite for AO & USO. Also in the top 3 for RG.