When will Roger retake Number 1?

First topic message reminder :

With an expected victory tonight, Roger will be over 2,500 points clear of Andy year to date. He should also clean up Miami in the absence of Murray and probable absence of Novak, extending the gap to 3,500 points over Murray and 4,000 points over Novak. It's then likely to be only a matter of time before he gets back to Number 1.

It's unlikely to happen by RG. He'd basically need to win everything on the clay and Andy do poorly. However, Wimbledon is a possibility. I can see a scenario whereby Andy loses in the SF and Fed takes the title to get back to Number 1. If not, the US Open is an option but it's a near certainty to happen in the autumn season, when Andy defends every point going and Fed defends 0 points.

I just have a feeling he will take it back at the US Open, winning his third slam of the year in the process. What do others think?

I would personally make Roger the strong favourite for year end number 1. He is only around 500 points behind Rafa in the race. I could see him having a healthy 1000 lead.

sirfredperry wrote:Murray chalks up his 40th week at number one today but it could well be his last few days at the top, with Rafa needing to reach the semis in Montreal to reclaim top spot. 
   It should then be a Rafa-Rog fight to get year-end number one, unless Murray can go on an autumn 2016-like run. Even then he would only be defending the massive points haul from the end of last year. More realistic for him to aim for a top eight finish to qualify for the O2.
   As for who will come out on top between Rog and Rafa. I would say that Rog is slight favourite.

Well it has not been too shabby a stay at No 1 (do believe 15th longest run at No 1 since rankings begun). It is a real shame injury has blighted his season or else who knows. As for who takes over well Rafa is odds on to do that. As for the year ending spot I would say Federer certainly has the edge. Federer's hard court pedigree just usurps Rafa so for me all Roger needs to do is reach semis, finals or win the main titles and the year ending No 1 is his.

Full credit to Andy Murray. And Jamie too.

Scotland (let alone little Dunblane) doesn't exactly boast a long tradition of bringing elite-level players to the world of professional tennis (or any sport ....?)

To get two brothers from such a 'backwater' to the very top, the Number One spot in their respective disciplines, would be quite some achievement in any context. To do so with guys like Nadal, Federer and Djokovic on the scene is very special indeed.

lags72 wrote:

Scotland (let alone little Dunblane) doesn't exactly boast a long tradition of bringing elite-level players to the world of professional tennis (or any sport ....?)

Well lest we forget Sir Jackie Stewart (multiple F1 World Champion), Colin McRae (youngest World Rally Champion), boxers Jim Watt (had one of longest runs as world champion by any Brits at least),Ken Buchanan and Ricky Burns plus those in lesser sports such as Stephen Hendry (greatest snooker player of all-time) and Jocky Wilson (darts) and am sure there are others out there from world of athletics etc.

Yes, well-noted CC - and pretty much immediately after posting I realised that I hadn't expressed myself as intended, by referring to Scotland and sport in general. There have been some pretty decent footballers too (Kenny Dalglish et al.....).

Rather than digging myself a deeper hole, will just add that from the time I first started watching tennis, I never, for one moment, thought that one day the world's best player would be a Scot ! Not sure that many other observers did either !

lags72 wrote:

Rather than digging myself a deeper hole, will just add that from the time I first started watching tennis, I never, for one moment, thought that one day the world's best player would be a Scot ! Not sure that many other observers did either !

You and me both. I am staggered.

Murray's OUT of Cinci. Here's the latest from the BBC -

"I'm continuing to work hard on the court with the aim of being in New York," said Murray.
"I won't be playing in Cincinnati as I continue my recovery - I always enjoy playing there and I look forward to returning next year."
Well, it looks as if there's a chance he won't play the USO. Or it could be that he's close to playing the Slam and doesn't want to risk it at Cinci.

Djoko out...Stan out...Murray not at his best....youngsters getting close to moving up a step but not quite there.... it's now or never for Rafa vs Roger in New York.

With Rafa's loss to Shapovalov, Roger retaking Number 1 is again a step closer. IF he manages to win in Montreal (which should be doable given who's left in the draw), he will be only 10 points behind Rafa.
As Rafa has 90 points to defend in Cincinnati, Roger would be virtually ahead by 80 points. So Rafa would need to outperform Roger in Cincinnati AND reach at least the QF.

Looking at the Race, Federer has a chance to overtake Nadal after this week, so year-end #1 looks very possible as well. Amazing given the fact that Nadal hoovered up almost 5000 points during the clay-season which Federer skipped entirely!

Well, Murray will get one more week at the top which will take him up to 41 weeks and ahead of Nastase in the all-time list. Will he ever get back to number one? After what's happened with Rafa and Rog this season, almost anything is possible. 
   As for number one for the next few weeks, I think Rog is going to pip Rafa for it and may be hang on to it for the rest of the season. But as someone once said: "Predictions are tricky, especially ones about the future."

sirfredperry wrote:Well, Murray will get one more week at the top which will take him up to 41 weeks and ahead of Nastase in the all-time list. Will he ever get back to number one? After what's happened with Rafa and Rog this season, almost anything is possible. 
   As for number one for the next few weeks, I think Rog is going to pip Rafa for it and may be hang on to it for the rest of the season. But as someone once said: "Predictions are tricky, especially ones about the future."

It's a good (in this case slight mis-)quote...attributed variously to the physical chemist Niels Bohr and baseball star Yogi Berra.

A prediction based on the strength of the remaining field - Federer will win the Rogers Cup.

He obviously now has an outstanding chance, with only Zverev as another Masters series Champion and RBA as a previous finalist, and the rest of the last 8 being journeymen.

I hadn't done the number crunching, but interesting that a tournament win here would put Fed into the 'live' #1 position during Cinci, so gets to #1 if he matches Nadal's performance there (or if Rafa doesn't reach the QF).

USO 3 way battle to take the #1 ranking if Murray is fit...

Hard to imagine Murray being fit enough to win a slam. I can see him playing and limping to the QF/SF but no further. Realistically, he's surely better to give it as much time as it needs - a slam isn't the ideal way to ease back into the tour.

Yes if Fed wins Montreal and matches Rafa in Cincy then he becomes number 1. This could have been Rafa's best chance, Fed is defending nothing and you would expect him to perform better at the latter stages of the season.

Only issue could be schedule. Rafa might play more and pick up the points to pass him either for a few weeks or even YE.

Dummy Half: I thought the quote might have been Berra's, but in a list I found of 50 quotes attributed to Yogi, it ain't among them. Pity. One of his best was: "If you see a fork in the road, take it."

Been watching some of the highlights from Thursday at Montreal. First, Ferrer played really well and would probably have beaten anyone else. Secondly, Shapovalov looked a real talent.

sirfredperry wrote:Dummy Half: I thought the quote might have been Berra's, but in a list I found of 50 quotes attributed to Yogi, it ain't among them. Pity. One of his best was: "If you see a fork in the road, take it."

Been watching some of the highlights from Thursday at Montreal. First, Ferrer played really well and would probably have been anyone else. Secondly, Shapovalov looked a real talent.

dummy_half wrote:

sirfredperry wrote:Dummy Half: I thought the quote might have been Berra's, but in a list I found of 50 quotes attributed to Yogi, it ain't among them. Pity. One of his best was: "If you see a fork in the road, take it."

Been watching some of the highlights from Thursday at Montreal. First, Ferrer played really well and would probably have been anyone else. Secondly, Shapovalov looked a real talent.

Ferrer would "probably have BEATEN anyone else". Typo by me. Sorry. Another Yogi Berra quote for you: "I never said most of the things I said."

An interesting statistic about the world rankings: since the beginning of the open era, there’s been a very consistent pattern of when a dominant #1 (i.e. holding the top spot for 2-3 years uninterrupted) emerges:
mid-seventies: Connors
mid-eighties: Lendl
mid-nineties: Sampras
mid-noughties: Federer
mid-2010s: Djokovic

In between there have been some other greats like Borg, McEnroe, Agassi and Nadal who’ve held the number 1 spot for more than 100 weeks in total, but never for a longer uninterrupted period.

If this pattern holds, we can expect the next player  to dominate the rankings somewhere in 2024. Surely by that time the current “big four” will all have retired!

I dunno, at this rate Federer will probably soldier on aged 43, playing mixed doubles with his kids on tour.

"Some people think it's crazy, but Mirka and I think the best way to do parent is on the tennis court."

Anyway, back kind of on topic - Federer's loss to Zverev makes things interesting, as he is 320 point behind Rafa in 'live points' to take the #1 spot next week. Both are ahead of Murray as his 600 points from last year's Cinci final fall off.

So to get to #1 next week, Fed will need to win Cinci if Rafa reaches the final. Final defeat is enough if Rafa is out in the QF, and the SF if Rafa loses his first match

Even if he doesn't take the top spot this week, there's a strong chance for Fed to take over at the end of the USO.

Just occurred to me that now that Zverev is getting stronger each month and climbing the rankings rapidly, it might be that by the time Djokovic tries to take back the #1 ranking in 2018, the main challenge will actually be to beat Zverev (and possibly other young players).

True, Zverev hasn't won a major yet, but neither had Federer before Wimbledon 2003, and then he won 12 of the next 18.

Zverev has definately qualified for London now, OK not mathematically speaking but 99% sure. He said earlier in the season he could play both Milan, whic is actually 2 weeks before, and London. Currently 3rd in the race and with a strong chance of ending the year in that position also if current form continues.

Zverev has never been past Rd 4 of a slam.  But I suppose there is first time for everything.

If he manages to win the USO (and he certainly is one of the favorites) and if Fed either misses it entirely or plays poorly, the YE #1 might come down to a chase between Rafa and Zverev.

Rafa has a decent head start, but not entirely insurmountable.  It is obviously a long shot for Zverev, but this may be the closest in a long long time that anyone outside Big 4 had a realistic shot at reaching #1.

So Rafa's defeat in Cinci means that on Monday he'll be #1 with a lead of 495 points on Andy and 500 points on Roger. IIRC, both Rafa and Andy drop 90 points for last year's USO, so Fed is de facto #2 and 410 points behind Rafa at the start of the USO. Fed gets back to #1 at age 36 if he reaches the final and Rafa doesn't or with a semi-final if Rafa loses before the QF (assuming Andy doesn't out-perform Roger)

D- Half. Rafa, I think, has 180 points to defend from last year's USO so that might affect the maths.
   Murray has travelled to New York but nobody seems to know if he's going to play or not, while Rog's participation might be in doubt as well.

SFP

I'd be quite surprised if Roger doesn't play - my impression was that it was really just wear and tear that got to him in Canada. Murray I guess is close to being ready, but as with Wimbledon would probably benefit from there being another week or so of recovery.

If Rafa is dropping 180 points, it narrows the gap to 320, but that doesn't make a big difference to the scenarios - opens up a possibility of Fed getting back to #1 with a QF if Nadal loses in R1, but I think that's unlikely, or with a SF to Rafa losing in the quarters, which is more plausible.

Apparently Nadal has the lowest ever points total as a No1. He has less than half the points Djokovic had just over a year ago...

Djoko, I think, managed as many as 16,000 points at one stage. Of course, that included 8,000 from holding all four Slam titles. 
   That was truly freaky, as is the situation now with the two guys who missed a lot of last year doing well this year and the two guys who did well last year doing comparatively poorly in 2017.
   As long as either Rafa or Rog can do even reasonably well from now til the end of the season then the number one guy will have a reasonable number of points.
   People may recall that in the past the Hewitts, Roddicks, Safins and Ferreros got to the top with modest points' totals.

Rafa being no.1 in the rankings ( and race) when he has only 7000+ points is because of both Murray and Djoko, the top two guys last season, couldn't perform well this season thus losing many points.

Rafa's 7645 points include only 280 points from last season, so he has to be doing very well to overtake Murray for the no.1 ranking. In 2013 for example, Rafa had outperformed Djoko in the race by Wimbledon, but Djoko was still world no.1 because he was close to Rafa in the race, plus he had enough buffer from the previous season to prevent Rafa from overtaking him, until Beijing that year.

Rafa's current total would have put him at world number 3 one year ago. Interesting.

I expect by the end of the year both Rafa and Fed will have some respectable points totals. Murray was world number one without holding a grand slam for a period.

Guest82 wrote:Rafa's current total would have put him at world number 3 one year ago. Interesting.

I expect by the end of the year both Rafa and Fed will have some respectable points totals.  Murray was world number one without holding a grand slam for a period.

Worth noting that his race total would also only have been good enough to be at number 3 at this time last year. He is having a very good season but not an exceptional one.

Born Slippy wrote:

Guest82 wrote:Rafa's current total would have put him at world number 3 one year ago. Interesting.

I expect by the end of the year both Rafa and Fed will have some respectable points totals.  Murray was world number one without holding a grand slam for a period.

Worth noting that his race total would also only have been good enough to be at number 3 at this time last year. He is having a very good season but not an exceptional one.

I suppose Djokovic won pretty much everything last year, up until Wimbledon, beating Murray in the final.

Yeah, it's quite difficult to go above, say 9000 points, even if you're leading the race or the rankings. So far only Fed, Rafa and Djoko during their heydays had > 9000 ranking points right before the USO. Rafa (and Fed) are clearly past their heydays now.

Ranking points today minus US dropping

Rafa 7645 - 180 = 7465
Federer 7145 - 0 = 7145
Murray 7150 - 360 = 6790

Starting tourament, Rafa has 320 lead over Federer and 675 over Murray. Federer has 355 on Murray.

W 2000, F 1200, SF 720, QF 360.

Permutations:
Any of the three will be no 1 if they win the tournament.
Rafa will be no 1 if he matches both Federer and Murray or if both of them pull out before tournament start.
Federer will be no 1 if he gets to the F and his opponent is not Murray or Rafa.
Murray will be no 1 if he gets to the F, his opponent is not Federer, and Rafa did not reach the SF.
Murray has almost no chance of no 1 if he exits at SF, and literally no chance if he exits at QF.
If Federer only gets to the SF, he will be number 1 if Rafa exits at the QF and Murray doesn't make the final.
If both reach QF, Federer needs to go one round more than Rafa to be ranked above him. If Rafa exits R1, then QF is needed. If Rafa exits R2-R4, SF is needed to finish ranked above him.

Perhaps someone could cross check.

Murray withdraws, so it's now between Rafa and Federer for 1 after the US Open. I'll update my post here:

Rafa 7645 - 180 = 7465
Federer 7145 - 0 = 7145

Starting tourament, Rafa has 320 lead over Federer.

W 2000, F 1200, SF 720, QF 360.

Permutations:
Rafa will be no 1 if he matches Federer.
Rafa R1 Fed needs QF
Rafa R2 Fed needs SF
Rafa R3 Fed needs SF
Rafa R4 Fed needs SF
Rafa QF Fed needs SF
Rafa SF Fed needs F

Someone give HB an A* for Maths. No, wait, a 9.

I don;t think he is doing his GCSEs.

I got an A in maths at GSCE. I got one A*. It was in geography so I must be an expert at that.

I can't wait to see what happens when they both start playing - I hope that neither Fed's back or Nadal's knees are determinative, but that how far they go depends upon their respective form.

So now wer are down to this:

Henman Bill wrote:
Rafa R4 Fed needs SF
Rafa QF Fed needs SF
Rafa SF Fed needs F

In other words, Fed needs to get to SF and if he meets Rafa there he needs to beat him.

That also means that if Fed and Rafa were to meet in the SF, they would be playing for the #1 spot.  Am I correct that they never before played with #1 spot on the line?  The closest any of their matches felt like they were played for #1 ranking was their 2008 Wimbledon, but Rafa technically only claimed #1 later that summer.  Maybe I am forgetting some other occasion, but cannot think of any.

@sb - you are right. They have never played a match when #1 could have changed as the result of that match alone. When looking back at 2007, when Nadal was catching up with Federer, it is important to remember that the scoring system was different, with 1,000 for a Slam being the maximum.

Some might consider the changed scoring system to be a bit slewed. Although the points for winning a slam doubled from 1,000 to 2,000, the points for getting to a slam final (previously 700, now 1,200) and a slam semi (changed from 450 to 720) did not.
   This, IMHO, gives the winner a clear advantage, although it can be argued that if you have the skill and energy to win a slam then you deserve the big points.

sirfredperry wrote:Some might consider the changed scoring system to be a bit slewed. Although the points for winning a slam doubled from 1,000 to 2,000, the points for getting to a slam final (previously 700, now 1,200) and a slam semi (changed from 450 to 720) did not.
   This, IMHO, gives the winner a clear advantage, although it can be argued that if you have the skill and energy to win a slam then you deserve the big points.

It's always going to be an arbitrary stab at an unmeasurable achievement. For my part I think it preferable that in Men's tennis there have been very few #1's who got there without first winning a slam (Lendl was one), and only one #1 who has never won a slam (Rios). I think that the fact that by comparison with the Men the Women have had a relatively large number of players at #1 who have never won a slam somehow detracts from the WTA (although the fact that all tournaments are bo3 may slightly reduce the difference of slams in the Woman's game); I also appreciate that the somewhat mercurial career of Serena Williams has played a part in that, but I nonetheless don't think it's a good thing for the WTA as a whole.

At least Rios got to number one immediately after winning IW and Miami (which was then, and still is, the equivalent in points of winning one slam).
   I think for the women Wozniacki, Safina, Jankovic and Pliskova have all reached number one without a GS title.

Yes, Rios was also losing finalist at the Aus Open that year (1998).  He was not able to maintain his position at #1 for long, nor to reclaim it.

By contrast, some of those women #1's managed to stay there for quite a while.

In addition to the players we have both named, Clijsters and Mauresmo got to #1 without first having won a slam - although like Lendl they won slams subsequently to that achievement.

It has clearly been more difficult for the top men to attain or retain #1 without a slam than for the top women - although I think I am right in saying that the women have had similar points systems over the same period.

We may be getting ahead of ourselves as yet, but a potential Rafa-Fed semi could yet decide year end number one as well, especially if there is an easyish finalist waiting, which looks very likely!

Winner of Del Potro/Thiem looks the biggest barrier at the moment.

If there is a Fedal semi final it would be unlikely to determine y/e #1 of itself, particularly if Federer won since his lead would be the smaller of the two.  However, if the winner of a Fedal semi final were to go on and win the Final then he would be in a very strong position for y/e #1. Only Fedal would be in with a chance, and as things currently stand neither of them looks particularly likely (for different reasons) to overhaul a deficit of >1,000 points to the other between now and the end of the year - a case can be made that Federer tends to do better indoors at the end of the season, but on matters as they stand Nadal seems likely to play more tournaments.

As you say, let's not get ahead of ourselves....

I am just hoping that Federer does well enough to reclaim #1 for at least a while because I think holding it at 36 would be terrific.

Nadal already a break up vs. Dolgopolov in the 1st set and serving for it at 5:2.  It's almost impossible to beat him from such a position, it usually takes a much better player than Dolgopolov.

Could very likely be a quick straights cruise for Rafa. But let's hope Dolgo can find something /anything to make it a contest......

EDIT - oops, this really belongs on the matchday thread. (I blame barrystar for confusing me with his own post immediately above ..... )

right now, federer should do an outstanding end of season to reclaim it as he is almost 2000 points behind

if he plays basel, the two remaining masters and wtf he has a total of 4000 as much

of course it can be done, but its difficult

Federer needs to win Shanghai and the WTF, perhaps.