Roger Federer: I’m Wounded, I’m Tired, I’m Exhausted, I Need A Holiday Badly!
by Tom Gainey | September 17th, 2012, 11:48 pm
  • 158 Comments

After helping put Switzerland back in the World Group for 2013, Roger Federer said he needs a break from tennis, and he needs one badly.

“Absolutely I need a holiday badly,” Federer said Sunday following a straight set win over Robin Haase to give Switzerland a 3-1 win over the homestanding Netherlands.

“I’m wounded. I’m tired. I’m exhausted, so I need some time off right now and then see where I go from here,” he said. “Nothing’s been decided yet for the rest of the year even though there’s a plan in place. That plan might change I just have to now go back to the drawing board and decide what’s important, what’s most important and what’s really important so we’ll see what happens.”

Federer is scheduled to next play at the Shanghai Masters 1000 on October 8, then to Basel on the 22nd followed by Paris on the 29th before the season-ending ATP World Tour finals beginning on November 5.

Federer is currently No. 1 in the ATP Rankings but trails Novak Djokovic by 1,005 points in 2012 ranking points.

The Swiss has had a long, productive summer reaching the French Open semifinals, the Halle finals, winning Wimbledon, winning the silver medal at the Olympics, winning Cincinnati before a quarterfinal effort at the US Open. This past weekend the 31-year-old played in three rubbers for Switzerland winning both singles but losing the doubles.


Also Check Out:
Victoria Azarenka Sounds Mentally And Physically Exhausted
Roger Federer Calls U.S. Election Process Brutal
Jo-Wilfried Tsonga Presser: “Tonight I Can See Myself In The Mirror And Say, ‘Yeah, You Fight Enough’”
Merry Tennis-X Mas And Happy Holidays!
Merry Tennis X-Mas and Happy Holidays

Don't miss any tennis action, stay connected with Tennis-X

Get Tennis-X news FREE in your inbox every day

158 Comments for Roger Federer: I’m Wounded, I’m Tired, I’m Exhausted, I Need A Holiday Badly!

nebojsa Says:

We love you Roger :)))Vous aimez Roger…Tu as notre nombre 1.


Stella Says:

Rest well Roger!


Giles Says:

Have never heard Fed speak this way. He is usually so positive. Maybe he does need a break.


skeezer Says:

Fully expexted this. He has acomplished some very big goals in 2012, that being getting back to #1 in the World and adding another Slam to his undeniable GOAT status @31. This stretch really started a year ago, and he has played lights out since..

Amazing.

Rest up Fed, and enjoy the good life, you’ve earned it Champ!


Anna Says:

You have a good and deserving rest Roger, but I hope you are not thinking of retiring???? Somehow between the lines, sense you might have this in mind. PLEASE DON’T DO THIS TO US !!!!


madmax Says:

Do you really think Roger is going to retire Anna? Seriously?

He loves tennis.

he needs a break. Not so sure playing Shanghai though is a good goal to have, it’s too soon after all his accomplishments. 8th October is way too soon. He needs to take a month off a gain before the World tour finals. His body must be aching badly.


Brando Says:

roger should skip shanghai- rest is more important.

Whether he gets the YE no.1, IMHO, is not really a big deal for him. It’s nothing more than a bonus for him at this stage.

He should just take it easy, relax with the family and only return once he is feeling fresh and motivated.


tennisfansince76 Says:

i don’t know why he played Davis cup. leave that for younger players


Everyone is entitled to my opinion Says:

Maybe Roger is buying into Rafa’s idea that the calendar is too hectic. He can’t take the pace anymore, especially as no one is handing him matches on a plate like they did in the weak era.

No more easy wins, he’s got to work for it now and he can’t cope.


DC Says:

Roger will soon complete 300 weeks at number 1.
It’s amazing – even when he is on a break and doing nothing, he’s reaching milestones and breaking records.


Everyone is entitled to my opinion Says:

It’s a paradox that Roger should reach 300 weeks at #1 because he’s not that good just lucky.


fariba fahimazar Says:

dear roger you are the best and will be the best for ever love you so much fariba


rogerafa Says:

@ DC

“Roger will soon complete 300 weeks at number 1.”

Roger may be left hanging tantalizingly at 299 weeks if he does not play before Basel(which appears likely) and Novak wins both Beijing and Sanghai(not unlikely since he is the best hard courter). Andy could pose a challenge at Sanghai but the absence of Rafa and Roger should make Novak’s job a bit easier. Novak will almost definitely regain the top rank after Paris, if not earlier, unless he plays really poorly in the rest of the season. Once Novak regains that rank, I do not envisage Roger taking it back. Andy or Rafa are more likely to overtake Novak in the coming years.


bstevens Says:

I agree with people saying Fed should skip Shanghai. He needs save whatever energy he has left this year for his current best surface: indoor hardcourts. He has to defend 3000 points while Djokovic only has to defend about 500 points for the rest of 2012. So even if Fed manages to defend all his points, Djokovic has the inside track on year-end #1.


grendel Says:

“Roger may be left hanging tantalizingly at 299 weeks if he does not play before Basel(which appears likely) and Novak wins both Beijing and Sanghai”

If this happens, what a strange repeat of history, when Federer was left tantalisingly 1 short of Sampras’ record. However, although 300 is a satisfyingly round number, I don’t think Fed’ll be too bothered if he’s stuck at 299.

Assuming Nadal is fit by the start of the claycourt season, once he’s made his customary run there, he’ll have no points to defend and huge numbers to gain. I’d be surprised if he doesn’t land #1 again for a while.


sienna Says:

bstevens Says:
I agree with people saying Fed should skip Shanghai. He needs save whatever energy he has left this year for his current best surface: indoor hardcourts. He has to defend 3000 points while Djokovic only has to defend about 500 points for the rest of 2012. So even if Fed manages to defend all his points, Djokovic has the inside track on year-end #1.

September 18th, 2012 at 2:26 pm

You make a mistake thinking year end #1 is about defending points.

Defending points has nothing but abasolutely nothing to do with how many points there are to defend.

year end #1 is based on the race points and Novak is ahead and Fed needs to catch him if he wants to finish the year as #1. He nly has to get more then 990points above Novak and that does not mean he needs to defend 3000 points.


Tz Says:

Everyone is entitled to my opinion says,
“It’s a paradox that Roger should reach 300 weeks at #1 because he’s not that good just lucky”

Probably u are just so unlucky that u don’t have a brain just dung instead?? May be that’s where all those rubbish came from!

I don’t how much stupidity is required to think that a guy was at the top spot for almost 300 weeks with just luck not his talent!


Tz Says:

It should be, I don’t know^^


Everyone is entitled to my opinion Says:

Federer got lucky because he thrived in the weak era.


skeezer Says:

“Federer got lucky because he thrived in the weak era.”

Hahahahahahahahahahahaha.

Keep driinking Rafa Kool Aid.


Anna Says:

hey everybody is entitled to my opinion, just what is your problem????? what exactly are u doing in Roger Fed. Fan club anyway, if you don’t have much hope for Roger, ( and by the way, you are going to eat your words!) then but out and go to Novak/Murray/Rafa, what Ever!!


Huh Says:

EIETMO is here to cause super embarassment to nadal fans by his lame posts.


Huh Says:

skeezer

correct! ;)


Wog boy Says:

I hope Nole is not going to fall for this one:)

Federer will be more than ready for the end of season, the only way he is going to miss any of tournaments is if Nole doesn’t do well in Beijing/Shanghai.

“Timeo Danaos et Dona Ferentes.”


subo Says:

we no for sure roger is very tired not like nadal all messed up for blood doping that is the difference now nadal is gambling where the hell is the atp to stop the fraud nadal


grendel Says:

So, Wog boy, on top of knowing all those Balkan languages, getting better and better English, you know Latin. I did a bit of Latin at school, but remembered only timeo meant “I fear”. I looked the phrase up (I fear the Greeks bringing gifts), but the English paraphrase, “beware of Greeks bringing gifts” is more suggestive don’t you think. Stupid Trojans, eh? It still hurts when I think how they let themselves be hoodwinked. But why? What are the Trojans and Greeks to me? Instructive how we develop these partisanships. Carries on in tennis, eh? We all have our reasons, but in the end, it’s the heart that dictates, isn’t it?

So you think Federer is trying to pull a fast one on Djokovic, eh? Well, personally, I hope he does – but: what exactly is it that you fear he is up to?


SG1 Says:

Huh Says:

“EIETMO is here to cause super embarassment to nadal fans by his lame posts.”

And he’s (or she’s?) doing a mighty good job of it. I’d say that at the present time, the men’s game has never been deeper. Particularly in the top 10 where there are some incredible players. It’s not small feat to win a major these days. While I’d say that Fed had an easier time of things from 2003 to 2006, he has absolutely earned (if this is the right word) every slam from 2007 onward. The game has been quite top heavy since then. He’s pretty much right there at every slam tournament for nearly a decade. Somehow, that doesn’t seem like luck to me.


Huh Says:

SG1

fair enough…


Alok Says:

Fed’s played a lot of matches, and it’s understandable why he’s tired now. He needs to rest and regroup for Basel and the WTF.


Wog boy Says:

grendel,

I have to much work to do this morning so I will get back to you later but I just want to say few things.
This is just another quality of Federer, I mean it, so don’t take it as I am talking something bad about him. This is one of the reason he is the GOAT, he proved time and time again that he knows what to do and when to do, that he has mental edge over all players but one, and that he is sharpest player on tour when it comes to mental crunch (Nadal exluded).

About my Latin, no I don’t speak Latin, this is only leftovers from high school education (two years of Latin language as must subject) and I still have to go to Wiki to check spelling. I know about english translation but I prefer original because something is always lost in translation. In this case it was no Greeks as such in those times so some can consider it as insult to todays Greeks.
I’ll get back to explain myself particulary because of Fedfans on this forum that I respect and I do care about their opinion.
I have to go, C U later.


grendel Says:

Wogboy – should have said “bearing” gifts, not “bringing”. Who would have thought one word could make such a difference – but it does. Know what you mean about translation losing something from the original. Sometimes, though a translation can take on a life of its own, and it’s almost as if it’s a new original.


MEi Says:

You have nothing to prove now, Roger. So take a well deserved break and play again only when you are ready. Tennis will not be the same without your presence. Good luck, Champ!


Wog boy Says:

grendel,

I am having a smoko (since you lived and worked here I am pretty sure you are familiar with “smoko”), I will try to answer you question why I think what I said. When I look at my last post I can see I almost answered it. You do not telegraph your main oponent for #1 that you are worn out and that you probably will have to skip some tournament, do you? Of course, you don’t do that unless you want to relax your oponent and make him think that his task is now eaisier since he (oponent) is tired. Federer is in better position than Nole because he doesn’t have to play all remainig tournaments and Nole must play all of them. Federer can play by ear and decide what to do. If Nole wins Beijing and Shanghai than more or less the race is finished, but if Federer does well in Shanghai and Nole doesn’t, Federer still can do well in Basel an skip Paris and come fresh to London with more chances taking #1. Thats mean Nole will have to play two extra tournaments before London (Beijing&Paris) and Federer is going to be well rested. Nole doesn’t have those options (I explained on the other thread why) and must play every single tournament until London. I am pretty sure we will have clear picture after Shanghai masters. I don’t have doubt in my mind that Federer is tired but you don’t say that unless…….:)
I can asure Fedfans that he will be fine in Shanghai particulary as there is more chances that Murray as #3 now gets in Nole’s side of draw. After Shanghai Federer still has more choices than Nole. So what do you think who is going to be more tired in London.
The only real problem is if he is running emotionaly low after all of his achievements this year but than again, we are talking Federer !


Sienna Says:

subo Says:
we no for sure roger is very tired not like nadal all messed up for blood doping that is the difference now nadal is gambling where the hell is the atp to stop the fraud nadal

September 18th, 2012 at 6:30 pm

WOW what a great post!


skeezer Says:

Wog boy,

Chimed in and read your discussion with grendel, and I get what your saying.i have not put much effort in figuring out the odds of the rest of the season so you 2′s talk helped. Thanks… Blog on.


jamie Says:

Retirement is not that far away. He won his last slam at Indoor Wimbledon this year. He won’t have the kind of extraordinary alignment ever again at a slam. He will retire with 17 slams. Book it.


jamie Says:

Nole will finish the year as #1 as he deserves it for his 3 slam finals in 2012. Slams>>>>>>anything else.


jamie Says:

@grendel

Murray will be #1 next year and he will win 2 slams and many more titles next year. 2013 will be his Golden year.


Margot Says:

@jamie
Like your “prediction”…;)
I’ll certainly drink to that one :)
Cheers!


grendel Says:

jamie – although I share – sort of – Murray’s nationality, I’m not a fan of his as such, so really you should have addressed your post to Margot. However, I’ll be quite content if he does as well as you predict, since I like Murray. I still, however, remain to be convinced. Other things being equal, Djokovic and Nadal should tie up the French and the US. So Murray’s best chances will be the AO and Wimbledon. Hardly a shoo in, however.


alison Says:

As i said a couple of days ago i believe this is the begining of better things to come for Murray,im wondering if the next big rivalry will be between Andy and Novak,Roger had Rafa to worry about,Rafa had Novak to worry about,and now maybe Novak will have Andy to worry about,however i think only an idiot would bet against Roger and Rafa from still winning more slams yet,right them off at your peril,as both players have won a slam concistently for years,ok this is Rogers 1st slam for a couple of years,but has still always been a contender,and could we please stop the endless retirement talk,let the players themselves decide if and when that they want to retire.


Huh Says:

”however i think only an idiot would bet against Roger and Rafa from still winning more slams yet,right them off at your peril”

alison

very well said as usual, props! :)


alison Says:

Thanks Huh.


Huh Says:

jamie

good grief about novak losin to fed in wimbledon! but you know, bein a novak fan you should be the last one to bring up such excuses! it’s good thou to see u givin up any hope of your guy beatin fed indoors, and add to it that we just saw in the just concluded uso that novak cannot play well in wind either!

so can’t handle murray in windy condition, can’t handle fed in indoor condition, can’t handle nadal on clay in any condition unless nadal’s playin with doubt/below his level; what more you wanted, sheesh!

and you’ve to be absolutely on somthin high to declare that the current world no.1 cannot win a slam ever again! you rather worry about novak now that murray has won has first slam, n he’s no more goin to be too nervous about plyin novak in slams anymor! muzz never was in awe of novak either in the 1st place! so that’s somethin for you to wory! n nadal i can already see gettin ready to hand novak his @$$ in RG yet again should they meet, LOL ;)


madmax Says:

Everyone is entitled to my opinion Says:
It’s a paradox that Roger should reach 300 weeks at #1 because he’s not that good just lucky.

September 18th, 2012 at 1:07 pm

So may disrespectful comments from ex Tennistalkers here…stalkers…wanting to bring gifts of bad luck to Federer. How can anyone call themselves a tennis fan when they write such rot.

Jamie, you are in there. When no one agrees or is even remotely interested in your drastically wrong and ridiculous predictions, you come back and use negative language about a guy that we actually respect and who brings us a lot of joy. If you don’t want to contribute to a healthy discussion then buzz off to never never land.

299 weeks? 300 weeks? does it matter?

Not only that, weren’t the rumblings about federer not ever passing the elusive 287 weeks…Hey, shouting from the rooftops, HE DID IT!

Seems that Fed sets the bar so high that others just can’t stand the existence of it.

It’s important too to remember that this weak era argument (try and think of something else will you), doesn’t hold. Whatever Federer does, isn’t good enough because he is just so brilliant and has been so brilliant for so long, that jealousy just sets in…

Weak era: Rafa (turned pro 3 years after Roger), Murray, turned pro, 4 years after Roger, Novak, turned pro, 4 years after Roger…

I guess they are all taking part in a weak era. All of them.

Guess the true champion is de bakker.


alison Says:

Madmax Jamie said exactly the same thing last year,Fed is done winning slams,he will retire with 16 blah blah blah,and then Fed wins his 17th slam at Wimbledon hmm,now H/S is saying exactly the same thing,(YAWN)Fed is done winning slams 17 will be his final count,the point is we didnt take any notice of what H/S said then,so why would we take any notice now?


Bill Fromnic Says:

Roger is putting his priorites into focus. Family comes first.What ever he does is fine with me.He has been such a great ambassador for the game.I hope he does come back this year so he can reach 300 weeks at number one and maybe play at least one more year to add to his grand-slam total.


Dave Says:

Alison: Tennis analyst Steve Flink, who tends to be conservative in his comments, said of Federer after he won his 17th title at Wimbledon: “Of this much I am nearly certain: this will not be his last major… He will win at least one or two more majors before he concludes his career, and perhaps more.”
http://www.tennischannel.com/news/NewsDetails.aspx?newsid=11140

I don’t take notice of anyone who claims to listen to astrologists.

From 2013 to 2014: both Federer and Nadal will likely win grand slams. And certainly Nadal will be playing the 2013 Australian Open (since he was already competing in a golf competition three weeks ago).


Dave Says:

At the Davis Cup final conference, Federer was asked: “What’s up for you now, a holiday or what?” Ask this leading question to several of your friends (i.e., the hard-working friends with money for a vacation) – what would be their likely answers?

So Roger’s answer was not surprising: “Absolutely, I need a holiday badly. I’m wounded, tired, exhausted. So I need some time off right now, and then we’ll see where I go from here. Nothing’s been decided for the rest of the year. Even though there’s a plan in place, but that plan might change. I just have to now go back to the drawing board and decide what’s important, what’s most important, what’s really important, so we’ll see what happens.”

There were several parts to Federer’s rational answer, so let’s start with the most important.

- Yes, there was a plan in place. For many months, even before regaining No.1, Federer’s website displayed his plan to play Shanghai, Basel, Paris, World Tour Finals after the US Open (he probably also planned to play Davis Cup, though he did not make it public until just before the tie). But even the best-made plans are subject to change if needed. Plans are based on priorities (which are based on goals). When the situation/circumstances change it can affect whether those goals and priorities are still the same (and therefore whether those plans are still relevant or need to be changed).

- What Federer said about going back to the drawing board to re-assess his plans echoes what he said after his loss at the US Open: Question: “Would finishing world No. 1 end of the year still be the ultimate achievement for you, do you think?” Federer: “Well, yeah, I’ve got to go back to the drawing board from here and see what’s really the priority, if that’s a priority for the end of the year. So I don’t know right now. I mean, the goal has been achieved, but now this is disappointing for me. We’ll see where I go from now and if I go to Davis Cup or not, about what’s to come for the remainder for the season. That obviously then No. 1 has another a role to play, but this obviously is a setback. But again, season is not over. I hope to finish strong at the end, and particularly in the indoor season then.” At that press conference, Federer was waiting to see where Djokovic finished at the US Open: had Djokovic won the US Open, the extra 800 points would have probably put the year-end ranking out of reach. Had Del Potro beaten Djokovic in the quarterfinals, Federer’s points have been very close to Djokovic. But Djokovic losing the US Open final still gives Federer a lifeline: the current points gap (1,105) between Federer and Djokovic is not insurmountable if Federer plays his very best and Djokovic does not in the Fall.

- On August 30 (during the US Open), the Shanghai Masters website confirmed Federer’s participation. At that time, Federer was surely confident of doing well at the US Open (it’s plausible he would have won the US Open had he beaten Berdych, considering he is a good wind player – as Nadal found out at 2012 Indian Wells – and his positive 1-0 hardcourt record over both Murray and Djokovic in the past 52 weeks).

- Federer had probably expected to be within a certain points gap of Djokovic at the end of the US Open. I had predicted that Federer would likely win the year-end No. 1 ranking even if Djokovic was as far ahead as 1,000 points (1,500 point gap was safer). Currently Djokovic is 990 points ahead of Federer in the year-to-date rankings, but that’s not the true story. Remember, a tiny amount of Roger’s points are from non-countable events and therefore may not be counted in the 52-week rolling rankings at the end of the year unless their status changes to countable: thus Djokovic is actually 1,105 points ahead of Federer right now (as Federer’s 115 points from Doha and Davis Cup are currently non-countable, while all of Djokovic’s points are currently countable). Federer is experienced enough to know that he wasted his time playing Davis Cup (a non-countable event) when he could have made more points by playing Beijing or Monte Carlo.

- It’s interesting that Federer did not take the logical path: skip the meaningless, time wasting Netherlands Davis Cup tie (which resulted in a date with the second-ranked Czech Rep next February) in order to rest and train and focus his efforts on Beijing, Shanghai, Basel, Paris, World Tour Finals to overcome the points gap with Djokovic. Especially with those final three events held back-to-back-to-back, it would have been helpful if Federer had the option to lose early in Paris (if he had overcome the points deficit during Beijing, Shanghai and Basel). By playing Davis Cup (a futile pursuit for Switzerland), Federer either shot his ATP goal of year-end No. 1 in the foot or he’s confident of overtaking Djokovic even with just four events.

- Federer’s higher priority as an ATP professional is to win grand slams, the year-end championship and the No. 1 ranking on the ATP World Tour — not waste his efforts on Davis Cup. Federer has to pick his priorities wisely because he’s no longer 25 years old and Switzerland are unlikely to ever win Davis Cup. Top players have to make sacrifices or suffer consequences. In 1998, Pete Sampras achieved his record sixth year-end No. 1: Sampras played seven tournaments in Fall 1998 in order to neck out Marcelo Rios by just 245 ranking points (about 500 points today)! 27-year old Sampras was able to play so much because he and his coach Paul Annacone took the smart decision to skip the Davis Cup World Group semifinal home tie against weak Italy in September 1998 (four of the five Americans in the top 50 also skipped that tie, which USA badly lost).

- At the moment, Djokovic is scheduled to play four events: Beijing, Shanghai, Paris, World Tour Finals (he has not confirmed Basel/Valencia 500 – Valencia would be an easier event to win). So Djokovic could add Basel/Valencia if needed. The hard-working Murray is scheduled for five events: Tokyo, Shanghai, Basel, Paris, World Tour Finals. By skipping Davis Cup, both Djokovic and Murray gave themselves the opportunity and flexibility to exploit more ATP tournaments and ranking points in the Fall (yet no tennis writer is branding them unpatriotic slackers for skipping the entire 2012 Davis Cup seasons, allowing their countries to sink to defeats).

- So what is Federer up to? Has he given up on the year end ranking? That’s unlikely. However, if he pulls out of Shanghai it would indicate that he has taken himself out of that face-off with Djokovic. If Federer plays Shanghai we have a face-off (since he confirmed his participation three weeks ago, he will likely play). What Federer does not want is for Djokovic to add to his Fall schedule out of fear of Federer making a run – at this stage, Djokovic is unlikely to play more than five events (if desperate, Novak could have added a sixth ATP 250 event like Thailand/Malaysia but this is now too late – though he could still add Vienna/ Stockholm/Moscow, but that’s unlikely between Shanghai and Basel/Valencia). It’s all very fluid right now – if Djokovic wins Beijing and Shanghai, Federer has to decide how much effort he wants to put into the remaining three events (of which Basel and WTF would still be his priorities). Regardless, stranger things have happened in tennis history with lucky draws as well as player injuries, loss of form and burn-out — so no lead is insurmountable until it’s a mathematically certainty.

- So Federer is probably going to react to the changing situation by modifying his plans if needed. That’s why he said “nothing’s been decided for the rest of the year.” Things are so close that he is still assessing whether or not he can do what is necessary to end the year No. 1, which depends on where Djokovic plays to and how well he plays in his next few events.

****

Don’t read too much into Federer saying “I need a holiday badly… I need some time off right now” in response to a press question asking if he will take a holiday. Roger always needs and takes a holiday after the post-US Open Davis Cup. Take a holiday is nothing new – it is what he has done for many years. Some people jumped to the conclusion that Federer is skipping the rest of the season – that’s unlikely. It’s even unlikely that he will skip Shanghai, though this is more plausible.

Federer’s revelation “I’m wounded, tired, exhausted” may or may not be a concern. Of course he is wounded, tired and exhausted because he has played more tennis (84 matches) over the past 52 weeks than everyone on tour other than David Ferrer – and he has played all of Switzerland’s four Davis Cup ties in 2011 and 2012 (that’s an extra ten matches he did not need to play, including travelling to Australia and Netherelands for away ties). It is a concern if Federer is carrying an actual injury, like he did in the Fall of 2004 (upper thigh muscle tear), Fall of 2005 (ankle ligament tear), Fall of 2008 (back injury), Fall of 2009 (back injury) and who knows when else since Federer rarely makes a drama of his injuries (unlike certain other top players who play golf or soccer on their injury breaks).

But Federer is probably also upset, burned out, tired, exhausted and distracted by other things on his mind than just the tennis matches and year-end ranking. One messy activity is Federer’s role, for an unprecedented third two-year term, as president of the ATP Player Council. In ATP history, no other top players want the role of Player Council president because it distracts them from their tennis goals and they get the most prize money by winning titles anyway. Federer is like a de facto union president for players. For a long time, he has been leading the players in protracted negotiations for significantly higher 2013 prize money with the grand slam executives as well as trying to get buy in from players for these increases in order to avert a player boycott of next year’s Australian Open. As we can see from the NHL salary negotiations, dealing with these ‘pay’ issues is a full time job (performed by dedicated executives of the player associations of the NHL, NFL, NBA, MLB, etc.). Unlike the NHL, Federer has to deal with six different stakeholders with differing agendas (four different grand slams, ITF, ATP) as well as with the unorganized players each with different goals. During the US Open (and for a long time before that) Federer had been negotiating back-and-forth with the Australian Open executives and with players on prize money increases. It was probably a factor in his loss to Berdych at the US Open.
http://tinyurl.com/cvtdaec

No wonder Federer is more tired, exhausted and distracted than his younger rivals – and don’t forget that the much older Federer also has family obligations, larger number of press interviews, greater commercial and sponsor activities, larger charity foundation responsibilities, etc. And having to listen to the opportunistic press continually nitpick every Federer loss must be irritating – especially when Federer’s 8 losses in the past 52 weeks is the least on tour (for players who play regularly on the ATP Tour).


Rahul Says:

Dave I got to say that I really appreciate the time and effort you put in your posts.


sienna Says:

I am a bit dazed and cnfoused by all the no brainers here claiming Djoker is the player of the year because he reached 3 and lost 2 slamfinals.

Since when are we crediting winners by losing finals? I did not remember any of the hatridge family crediting Fed for reaching finals in 2008 and beyond.

You should of course be watching the tournement wins especially where they both were present. We have already established Roger outshun Novak in that area.

But there is another way of looking at the current state of affairs regarding the player of the year.

There is only one player who has won on every surface possible.
In 2012 he has won indoor / outdoor, slow hardcourt / fast hardcourt, Gras / Clay The Mighty Fed has done it all this year defeating every one of the current top 4.

The most winningest player of the year to date with a staggering 88.4 % ratio winning 61 (most of the year) matches, the current #1 in the world rankings at 31 the PLAYER of the year is Roger Federer.


madmax Says:

alison Says:
Madmax Jamie said exactly the same thing last year,Fed is done winning slams,he will retire with 16 blah blah blah,and then Fed wins his 17th slam at Wimbledon hmm,now H/S is saying exactly the same thing,(YAWN)Fed is done winning slams 17 will be his final count,the point is we didnt take any notice of what H/S said then,so why would we take any notice now?

September 20th, 2012 at 8:18 am

Alison, I know. You are correct. I am bored with it. You can’t have a reasonable discussion with these guys.

Dave, it’s sooooooo good to see you back with your informative posts. You really put EIETMO in his place. Yahoooo!!!!!! Yeeehah!!!


Dave Says:

Rahul: Thanks much. And I really appreciate the time and effort you put to read my posts.

madmax: I’m here only cuz I miss you :) Is EIETMO a new scary monster? Oh, now I see who it is. OK, let me try…

EIETMO Says: “Maybe Roger is buying into Rafa’s idea that the calendar is too hectic. He can’t take the pace anymore, especially as no one is handing him matches on a plate like they did in the weak era. No more easy wins, he’s got to work for it now and he can’t cope.”

Here is conclusive proof that Federer always works harder and faster in his matches. On the other hand, Rafa can’t cope with the hectic pace so he takes rest periods and ‘theatrical display’ breaks between points.

Nadal vs Federer: Comparison of their work output in 55 seconds (side by side video)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=29EV2I5wt3U&feature=player_embedded

That’s why the total number of games played by the slower Federer-Delpo at Olympics semifinal is EXACTLY the same as played by the slower Nadal-Djokovic at 2012 Australian final.

In any case, let’s not forget that Federer won more matches and lost less matches over the past 52 weeks.


Huh Says:

some of the offensive smug no-brainers need to be reminded that Djoko is indeed the no.1 player of 2012 unless fed’s actually able to take away the year end no.1 ranking from him. there’s a reason nole’s ahead of fed in ranking points race for 2012. if winnin a masters was more important than reachin a slamfinal, then the sensible ones would’ve given more points to winnin masters than reachin slam final. and so far as losin the slam finals gies, good grief to you about fed not being even able to reach one slamfinal other than wimby!


Huh Says:

it’s essential to reiterate to no-brainers that nole’s no.1 player of year coz he beat nadal who kicked fed’s butt in 4 sets in AO, nole himself kicked fed’s butt gain in rome n straight-setted fed in FO n nole almost beat murray who beat the guy who beat fed! now get it up your brain n get educated!


Dave Says:

52-WEEK NO-BRAINER COMPARISON: ROGER, NOLE, ANDY, RAFA

Andy Murray explained (after winning US Open): “There is more to the tennis tour than just the Grand Slams… It is important to remember the tennis season. It starts in January, finishes in November, there is four slams, but there is also many other tournaments to get to No. 1 in the world, which if you’re No. 1 you deserve to be the player of the year. You can’t just rely on only playing the Grand Slams. You need to do well at the other events, as well.”

Note that for top players, the five most prestigious championships (four grand slams and world tour finals) are already factored into the ranking points. Given their heavy weighting, these five prestigious events make up about 55% of total mandatory events.

Now compare below Federer’s record with Djokovic, Murray and Nadal’s records over the last 52 weeks. Bottom line, since after 2011 US Open, 31-year old Federer outperformed Djokovic, Murray and Nadal — players 5 to 6 years younger and in their prime.

FEDERER:
- Ranking: rose to World No. 1 by winning 11,805 ranking points – that’s 1,335 points (12%) more than second-ranked Djokovic. Federer will be World No. 1 for at least a record 298 weeks or longer.
- Titles: won tour-best 9 titles (including record seventh Wimbledon 2000, record sixth World Tour Finals 1500, 4 Masters 1000, 3 ATP 500) from 11 finals and 15 semifinals in 17 tournaments. Unlike his rivals, Roger won titles on every surface, outdoor and indoor, in every part of the season. [The World Tour Finals is the fifth most prestigious tournament in Tennis – every great player (except two: Newcombe and Nadal) have won this historical event since 1970.]
- Overall match win-loss: tour-best 76-8 (91%).
- Top 10 player match win-loss: tour-best 20-5 (80%): 2-2 against Djokovic, 2-1 against Nadal, 2-1 against Murray, 2-0 against Ferrer, 3-0 against Tsonga, 2-1 against Berdych and 6-0 against Del Potro. Federer has three 6-0 bagels against top 10 players: Nadal, Djokovic and Del Potro. The most lopsided Big Four career match was Federer’s 6-3, 6-0 beatdown of Nadal at the 2011 World Tour Finals (see link: Federer won 67% of total points in 61 minutes). Furthermore, since 2011 Cincinnati, Federer won 13 consecutive matches against the three biggest power hitters in the game (Tomas Berdych [2], Juan Martin Del Potro [7] and Jo-Wilfried Tsonga [4] ) before losing only one match to a power hitter at this US Open.
http://tinyurl.com/c58gprs
- Davis Cup: Patriotic and selfless Federer played maximum four consecutive Davis Cup ties for Switzerland (ten matches/rubbers) in 2012 and 2011 – yet the younger Djokovic, Murray and Nadal all skipped Davis Cup this year to focus on winning grand slams and the No. 1 ranking.

DJOKOVIC:
- Ranking: Fell to No. 2 with 10,470 ranking points (1,335 points behind Federer).
- Titles: won only 3 titles (Australian Open 2000, 2 Masters 1000) from 8 finals in 16 tournaments over the past 52 weeks. All titles came only on outdoor hardcourts (failed to win on grass, clay and indoors).
- Overall match win-loss: 66-15 (81%). This 81% is closer to Novak’s average of 79% between 2007 to 2010 than it is to the 92% in his fluke year 2011.
- Top 10 player match win-loss: Mediocre 17-12 (59%), which means he lost to 12 top 10 players in the past 82 weeks.
- Davis Cup: did not play Davis Cup the entire year, skipping two Davis Cup ties this year (he practically skipped most of 2011 as he played only one doubles and half a singles match before retiring in a theatrical show). It’s possible Djokovic’s grand slam results in 2011 and 2012 have been affected had he played full Davis Cup (like Federer did).

MURRAY:
- Ranking: Rose in to No. 3 with 8,570 ranking points (3,235 points behind Federer).
- Titles: Won 6 titles (US Open 2000, 1 Masters 1000, 1 Olympics 750, 1 ATP 500, 2 ATP 250) from 9 finals in 21 tournaments. Five were outdoor hardcourt titles and one outdoor grass title. – Overall match win-loss: 64-13 (83%), which is slightly better than his 79% average from 2008 to 2011 (86% in 2009).
- Top 10 player match win-loss: 12-7 (63%). He was lucky not to face as many top 10 players as Federer (25) or Djokovic (29) faced.
- Davis Cup: Murray did not play Davis Cup the entire year, skipping two Davis Cup ties this year. Would Murray’s grand slam and Olympic results in 2012 have been affected if he played full Davis Cup (like Federer did)? Probably.

NADAL:
- Ranking: Fell to No. 4 with 7,385 ranking points (4,420 points behind Federer).
- Titles: Won 4 titles (including 7th French Open 2000, 2 Masters 1000, 1 ATP 500) from 5 finals in 14 tournaments. All titles only on outdoor clay.
- Overall match win-loss: 52-10 (83%) is skewed because Nadal missed the last four hard court and grass events where he would have likely lost some matches.
- Top 10 player match win-loss: 13-5 (72%). Did not play Davis Cup the entire year, skipping three Davis Cup ties this year. Would Nadal’s grand slam results in 2012 have been affected if he played full Davis Cup (like Federer did)? Possibly. Since 2006, Nadal turned up for only 8 of Spain’s 21 Davis Cup ties (38%), while Davis Ferrer carried Spain’s team by playing 16 ties (76%) during this period. Since 2006, Federer has played in 8 ties out of Switzerland’s 15 Davis Cup ties (53%).

Clearly Federer has outperformed Djokovic, Murray and Nadal over the past 52 weeks. It’s pathetic to nitpick Federer’s fewest losses (8) – when Djokovic (15), Murray (13) and Nadal (10) have suffered more losses, have inferior records over the past 52 weeks, and have been unable to stop Federer from leading the tour.


Polo Says:

Interesting, but I would rank their performances this year this way, from best to worst: Djokovic, Murray, Nadal, Federer.


Huh Says:

52 weeks no brainer or whatever,

guys seem to be forgettin here that fed pickin up points was easier this year coz he won no slam in 2011 n reached just FO final where he lost to his favourite whipin boy of 4 years, i.e. nadal.

nole has to be given credit for not losin too much ground this year as he has won three slams n multiple masters last year! nole again reached 3 slams finals winnin one, which’s way better than federer!

and despit all of fed’s returning to no.1, it’s nole who leads the point race in 2012, so no matter how you see at it, it’s nole who’s done better. if you don’t like it, ask ATP to deduct nole’s points to push him to 2nd place behind fed, but until that, it’s nole who leads the pack!


Huh Says:

i can understand the pain of fed fans when to make fed look better than nole, they’d to go beyond this year to gasp the straw of 2011 fall, lol ;)
can’t you just forget about comparing the fed of 2011 n nole of 2011, lol ;)

stats don’t lie, nole leads fed, n it’s not just in terms of rankin points for 2012 points race, but also in terms of performin well in the grandest stages in 2012! so it’s pathetic n also stupid to discredit nole for not bein able to defeat a on-song nadal on clay(which fed himself hasn’t done even once nor is he likely to ever do it!) or an on-song fed on Wimbledon(good that fed won it or would be sittin at 16) or an on-song n destined murray at USO while at the same time overcreditin fed for winnin a clay masters which hardly played like a clay court and he didn’t have to beat the clay GOAT or even nole for that madrid title!

fed lost to berdych, nole didn’t lose to anybody outside top-3 in slams. the only tournaments nole lost, he still reached the important rome masters final, nole even reached 3 out of 4 HC finals, fed didn’t!

and it’s hard to say if fed’s more patriotic than nole/rafa coz fed’s constant attendance at davis cup can’t be called too generous as fed has got a lot from his country n payin back, with the amount of success n fame n money he has, is not so hard on him!

Murray didn’t have a slam until now, so it’s unlikely he’d think of davis cup as priority. Similarly nole n rafa had already led their country to davis cup wins, so nothing unpatriotic if they don’t participate this year n take a break. Need they’ve fulfilled by givin davis cup triumph at least once, but they can’t be held obliged to fulfil their country’ greed for more wins at the cost of their personal achievements at such a critical stage of their career. Fed has everythin, they don’t have, so naturally they’re not to be held guilty for being a little more professional, their time to show patriotism’s hardly running out anytime soon! ;)
And when nadal can’t participate even in USO, how he could have in davis cup right now, lol ;)

Keep things in perspective guys! To confirm, refer again to 2012 points race!
And fed may do something great n snatch the year end no.1 rank from fed, but until he does it, nole’s undisputed best player of 2012(again forget about gpin past 2012 to 2011 just to make fed look better, lol).


Huh Says:

when i say fed’s not beaten rafa even once on clay, i mean ”conventional clay” like monte carlo/rome.


jane Says:

Super nice and fair post, Huh. I know you are an utterly devoted Fed fan, too, and that you cheer for a number of guys before Nole, so for you to acknowledge his accomplishments like that is really nice to read – esp for a Nole fan. :) I guess we’ll see at the end of the year who is number 1 in the race and rankings. Surely if Fed wins WTF, then he earns it fair and square, and he’s always been the best guy (or certainly one of the best guys) on indoor hard; thus he has a good shot at YE number 1. I have a feeling Murray might seize it next year, if he wins the AO. And then of course, as others have already pointed out (I think grendel) Rafa can only gain from Wimbledon until the end of 2013, so he could climb back up to number 1 too depending on how he does. It’s possible we’ll see a few exchanges of the crown over the next 12 months.


Huh Says:

i’d definitely have called nole’s 2011 fluke year with as much disrespecta s some have said here, but unfortunately even in 2012 he’s reached the finals of AO, Miami, MC, Rome, FO, Montreal, Cincinnati n USO winning AO, Miami, Montreal en route! of course it’s shameful that nole lost to fed in cincinnnati, wim n even to nadal in MC, Rome n FO(wait! fed has also never beaten nadal on these clay courts no? ;)). ;)

pathetic pathetic year by nole, lolz!!


Huh Says:

and dear fed fans, stop clingin to that 6-3 6-1 beatin of rafa by fed, that’s in 2011! now we’re in 2012 n in this it’s rafa who’s beaten federer in their most important meetin in AO, hahaha ;)

———–

you’re welcome mrs. jane. n how can i deny that nole’s the best player this year typically when he actully is! so much so that some hardcore fed fans ned to go to 2011 for a break, lol ;)


grendel Says:

jane -yes, Nadal has squillions of points ready to tumble into his lap in 2nd half of next year. That’s stating the obvious, but it’s going to concentrate minds. I’d have thought Djokovic and his fans should be pretty pleased with his year, Huh is right. Fed’s done ok too. And Murray. What a happy little world….


Huh Says:

”Interesting, but I would rank their performances this year this way, from best to worst: Djokovic, Murray, Nadal, Federer.”

LOL Polo, complately agree!!! :D


Huh Says:

and mrs jane

i don’t cheer for a no. of guys above nole, i cheer for just fed, muzz n delpo more than nole. i used to cheer for tsonga, but his on-court antics have got under my skin, but that can change n i may again cheer for him more than nole, lol ;)


Leon Says:

“52 weeks no brainer or whatever,
guys seem to be forgettin here that fed pickin up points was easier this year coz he won no slam in 2011 n reached just FO final where he lost to his favourite whipin boy of 4 years, i.e. nadal.”

The guy seems “to be forgettin here” that “pickin up” points is not any easier at all, at any moment, this year or any other time span. The guy seems to live in illusion of that figure of speech, “to defend points”. Whereas one has to earn new points with new wins instead. And it is not easier or heavier for any player. Wish to be #1 again? Then win again, that simple. Your previous wins live 52 weeks, not longer. Nobody can be made a new #1 by too old wins. I supposed it a no brainer, or is it (for some)? I supposed that e.g. Novak had equal chances to “pick up” those new points grabbed by Roger. Some don’t think so (inspired by Nadal dreams about 2-year rankings, or what?).

If there is a clear statistics for the freaking last 52 weeks, to replace the discussion with another, shorter statistics (with some softly speaking questionable comments which I have no wish to discuss) is a simple trick. There is a race, still not finished. To finish #1, Roger has to compensate about 1000pts lag. In theory, he can to secure that – just to win a couple of finals against Novak (of course, easier said than done, but still).
All the rest is a matter of taste. Feel free to express your preferences but don’t resort to various tricks, desirably.

Finally, it’s a bit strange why exactly the end-year rankings are so valuable whereas (i) there is a continuing 52-week ranking system, and the points don’t disappear on Dec, 31 and (ii) the interseason break is in fact shorter than some breaks the top players often take within the season. So this milestone is very conditional, for a good measure. A psychological one, for sure.


skeezer Says:

Leon,

Good post. Once you get to # 1 imho the most difficult task of all is STAYING there. I mean, you have to keep winning BIG like you say, constantly defending points.


Tennislover Says:

Leon,

I understand the spirit of your post and what you mean but “defending” points can become extremely important in the rolling system if the points gap between players is not big and it obviously has significant implications for their respective ranks. Of course, it is all relative and one can get away with a poor “defense” so long as the competition is not that tough and one’s main rivals are doing even worse. OTOH, even a great “defense” may not help if one’s rivals are doing better. The Race obviously becomes increasingly important as the season progresses since the entry system starts shedding the influence of last year’s points and current season’s results become progressively more influential in a player’s ranking breakdown.

” Finally, it’s a bit strange why exactly the end-year rankings are so valuable”

They are not so valuable as they are made out to be. Blame Sampras for making it fashionable. I do not recall it being as valuable in the pre-Sampras days. Sampras went to great lengths to secure the year-end top rank. While it is good to know who finished where at the end of a season or a calender year, I think a reasonably decent case can also be made for the player who holds the top rank for the most weeks in a season given, as you pointed out, the very small off-season that the tennis players have.


Huh Says:

dude Leon

get a life! i understand what you intended in your lame post which has no relevance with respect to what i’ve been sayin. i’m talkin about the year 2012! you got it? you may as well go back to 2003 fall and include all the fed years from 2003-12, but that hardly means sqaut to me!

it’s a well known fact that from january 1, 2012 upto this day, Nole and only Nole is the leader of the pack, not federer! I’m nowhere talked about past 52 weeks, I’m only talkin of 2012! desperate pathetic fed fans who’re deluded enough to believe that fed has so far done better than nole in 2012, LOL ;)


Huh Says:

and stop babblin and whinin like spoilt kid and look at the facts! fact is despite fed pickin all points within the past 52 weeks it hasn’t made much difference and stratin from jan 1, 2012 upto this date it’s actually nole who is still ahead of fed in 2012 points race, hahaha!


Huh Says:

just look what some guys’re talkin of; they’re talkin of pickin up points, lol! ;)

and it’s the clearest thing right now that nole has ”pickep up” max points this year from jan 1, 2012 upto now, hahaha!


Dave Says:

Huh, i can understand your pain: in order to make Djokovic look better than Federer, you grasp the straw of truncating the official ranking period from the immediate past 52 weeks to your fantasy world rankings of only the immediate past 37 weeks, lol :)

You clearly don’t understand the concept of the ATP world rankings and how a player’s ranking is determined. Before you pontificate again about having perspective, please learn the basics first. Leon above understands the principles of how the rankings work.

Djokovic remains the No. 2 player until — or rather IF — he manages to regain the World No. 1 player ranking.

The ATP rankings (aka ‘world rankings’) is based on a 52-week ranking period – it is not a 37-week ranking (i.e., only 2012) or an 88-week ranking (i.e., 2011 plus 2012). The ATP rankings – on any given day – rank players based on countable points earned during the immediate past 52 weeks (past one year). Therefore what happened in the Fall of 2011 remains relevant and part of the official rankings until replaced by the forthcoming Fall events.

Each player’s current ATP ranking is determined by ranking points earned during the bubble of the immediate past 52 weeks since September 19, 2011. These ranking points are earned from his performances in tournaments only during this 52-week bubble. Whatever happened before the 52 week bubble (i.e., before September 19, 2011) is completely irrelevant to the rankings within that bubble.

It is incorrect to fantasize “it’s nole who leads the pack!” In a 100 meter race, it does not mean much that a runner is slightly ahead at the 75 meter mark when he has Usain Bolt in second place at his favorite last 25 meters of the race :).

In any case, there is no official ATP world rankings based on a ‘part of the year’, such as year-to-date rankings for 2012. Thus, it is incorrect to say “sure it’s Djokovic who leads the year-to-date rankings in 2012” because there is no official YTD rankings in 2012.

As well, when you claim “it’s nole who leads the point race in 2012”, the reality is that Djokovic only leads ‘the Race To London’ (i.e., the calendar-year race to determine the top eight players who will qualify for the Barclays ATP World Tour Finals – the World Championship). It really does not matter if Djokovic is first or eight in this points race – as long as he is one of the top eight players who qualify for the World Championship.

Remember, I’m the poster who originally suggested that we should use the year-to-date data in order to get a clearer picture of the final 25% of the race to year-end No. 1 (several tennis writers like Peter Bodo are using the 52-week rankings to making speculations about the final quarter and it just gets confusing/stupid, e.g., when they suggest Andy Murray needs to defend Bangkok or can end the year No. 1). That’s because you can use such YTD data as a rough indicator of the players’ likely ranking at the end of the year (if nothing changes) and what each player should do/change to overtake other players by year end.

The reality is that, in his career, Djokovic rarely performs well after the US Open. His best ever Fall was in 2009, when Federer, Nadal and Murray were off form and/or injured. Djokovic skipped Serbia’s Davis Cup tie in September 2009, and then made 2,760 points that Fall by winning Beijing, Basel and Paris (he also lost Shanghai semifinals and World Tour Finals round robin). Djokovic has never made anywhere close to as many points or won I think more than one title in any other Fall.

Federer dominates the Fall season whenever he’s uninjured and decides he wants to dominate it. That’s because of Federer’s superiority indoors, outdoors and on hardcourt: Federer’s current 52-week indoor winning percentage is tour-leading 95% (Djokovic 67%, Murray 75%), current outdoor percentage is tour-leading 89% (Djokovic 84%, Murray 84%), and current hardcourt winning percentage is tour-leading 94% (Djokovic 85%, Murray 85%). Like I said before the US Open, Djokovic having a 1,000 point lead over Federer at the end of the US Open is unlikely to be enough (of course he has to execute).

It’s complete nonsense that it was “easier’ for Federer to pick up points this year because he won no slam in 2011. It was not ‘easier’ or ‘harder’ – Federer simply had to win whatever points were necessary over and above what his immediate rivals did otherwiser he would not have become No. 1. It does not matter whether Federer won any slam BEFORE September 19, 2011 (it is just as irrelevant if he won 0 slams or won 100 slams in the first nine months of 2011). Federer’s ranking today is the outcome of his own performance RELATIVE TO the performances of the other top players during this bubble of the immediate past 52 weeks. Whatever points Federer picked up during this 52-week bubble is because he performed relatively better in the tournaments he played compared to Djokovic, Nadal and Murray’s performances since September 19, 2011. That is basically the way the ATP Tour works: a player is rewarded according to his performances in the hierarchy of tournaments he played within the 52 week bubble.[Btw, that’s why Nadal can afford to take six weeks off: he has enough points to probably keep his ranking from falling below No. 4 until he makes his run in 2013 – regardless of a protected ranking].

It’s more idiotic to represent Federer’s 2001 performance by his having “reached just FO final where he lost to his favourite whipin boy of 4 years, i.e. nadal” than it is to represent Nadal’s performance in 2011+ by his having reached seven finals where he lost to his favorite whipping boy last year, i.e., Djokovic. That’s because Nadal’s seven losses to Djokovic had far more impact on Nadal’s ranking during that period (Rafa lost the No. 1 ranking largely because of these losses since 2011 clay season started). On the other hand, Federer’s loss to Nadal in 2011 French Open had absolutely ZERO impact on his regaining the No. 1 ranking after 2012 Wimbledon — that’s because this depended on what he did from after 2011 Wimbledon to 2012 Wimbledon (2011 French Open happened before that bubble, duh).

In any case, you are fixated on the wrong measure (Fed’s loss to Nadal) as opposed to focusing on the right measure (Fed’s overall performances in his tournaments relative to his rivals). Bottom line, Djokovic made only 10,470 points over the last 52 weeks — this is 4,250 points less than his 14,720 points at the end of 2011 US Open! Nadal lost 2011 to Djokovic because he made only 9,595 points by end of 2011, which is 2,855 points less than his 12,450 points in 2010 year end — and far less than what Djokovic made. Federer is currently No. 1 because he has 11,805 points during the immediate past 52 weeks (that’s currently just 645 points less than Nadal’s greatest ever season in 2010!) which is greater than Djokovic’s 10,470 points during this period.

Since 1973, in ATP tennis history, there were several players (e.g., Federer, Connors, Lendl, Sampras, Hewitt, McEnroe, Nadal) who captured and held on to the No. 1 ranking longer than Djokovic’s 53 weeks – that’s why there are eleven No. 1 periods over the last 40 years that are as long or longer than Djokovic’s 53 weeks. Federer did it for 237 consecutive weeks, Connors 160 consecutive weeks, Lendl 157 consecutive weeks. Each of these players was able to do whatever it took to win more points than his rivals for every week of each period. It’s not easy to do.

What Djokovic did last year before September 19, 2011 is past history and does not affect what he did after September 2011. This past history is as irrelevant to Djokovic’s current 52-week bubble… as what Federer did from 2004 to 2007 is as irrelevant to his current 52-week bubble (where he is the current No. 1). Bottom line, Djokovic performed exceptionally for only the first nine months of the year 2011… but thereafter, since 2011 US Open, he failed to perform adequately to remain No. 1 beyond July 2012. It does not matter how many finals he reached – bottom line his results were insufficient to be the No. 1 player. Indeed, for Djokovic to be knocked off No. 1 after winning three of four slams in a nine-month period is a clear indication that there were deficiencies in his results after that nine month period. You can live in the past and idolize his past achievements in the first nine months of 2011 and give him credit for whatever he has done since then — but it does not change the fact that his overall performance in the past 52 weeks had deficiencies that led to his loss of the No. 1 ranking in early July. He is not ‘defending’ anything before the bubble because those points have disappeared forever — his goal should always be to make as much or more than what he had the previous year (but instead, he made less in most tournaments)

When you harp on “nole again reached 3 slams finals winnin one, which’s way better than federer!” it indicates you are fixated on grand slams ar. Listen to Andy Murray’s perspective on the place of the grand slams in the ATP World Tour. At the end of the US Open, Murray (Djokovic’s friend and practice partner) was asked whether he considered himself the most successful player of the year: Murray: “… I don’t think I have had the best year on the tour, no…there is more to the tennis tour than just the Grand Slams… I think it is important to remember the tennis season. It starts in January, finishes in November, there is four slams, but there is also many other tournaments to get to No. 1 in the world, which I think if you’re No. 1 you deserve to be the player of the year. You can’t just rely on only playing the Grand Slams. You need to do well at the other events, as well. I haven’t done as well as I have needed to get to No. 1 in the world. I would say Novak or Roger would be the best players this year. But there is still a few months left.”

Wimbledon is the most prestigious grand slam championship in tennis history – so Federer won the biggest title of the year (the Australian Open is arguable the least prestigious of the four grand slams).

Whatever Federer accomplished in the grand slams over the past two years is much more impressive than his younger rivals (the slackers) – given that Roger did it despite his selfless and patriotic sacrifice to help his country on four Davis Cup ties (10 matches) since July 2011. Those four Davis Cup ties burned four weeks from this aging warrior’s busy schedule and exhausted body. As a consequence, Federer had to sacrifice the 3,000 points of Shanghai 2011 (maybe 2012 as well), Monte Carlo 2012 and Canada 2012 over the past 52 weeks (Djokovic did not have to sacrifice any Masters events partly because he did not play Davis Cup).

Federer “has everything” because he sacrificed and put in the hard work for years before seeing any returns. It’s ridiculous to expect Federer – after all that Switzerland has gotten from his success – to continue paying back at age 31. Federer practically donates his time to Davis Cup (he is not under contract so he does not get paid much for his time) – whenever he plays Davis Cup he sacrifices playing a lucrative tournament.

On the other hand, the younger Djokovic, Murray and Nadal already want the easier route at a younger age. By putting their individual careers first before Davis Cup this year, they had significantly more time to rest, prepare and focus on the grand slams than Federer did. Djokovic skipped Davis Cup entirely this year 2012 (despite his failure to win an Olympic medal for his country) and put in only minimal effort in 2011 when he played only one doubles match and half a singles match (he partnered former No. 1 doubles player Zimonjic to a straight sets loss in doubles against Sweden… and two months later retired while losing a singles match after just 1.5 sets against Argentina). Winning the Davis Cup in the past does not absolve and excuse young players like Djokovic and Nadal from their patriotic duty to win more Davis Cups for the glory of their countries. As well, not having a slam does not excuse Murray from Davis Cup (Federer won his first four slams without missing any Davis Cup ties). Roger played 11 consecutive seasons of Davis Cup until age 29 (and played all 13 consecutive ties during his first six Davis Cup seasons) and he played more rubbers per tie than Djokovic, Nadal and Murray have ever done.

If Nadal is able to compete in a golf tournament during the US Open (he came in 13th), it indicates he’s fit enough to compete in Davis Cup singles on clay if he really wanted (Nadal plays golf right-handed, meaning whenever he swings the stress is on his supposedly-triple-injured left knee – if he is already playing golf and he did not appear injured in losing to Rosol three months ago, this suggests his injury was never serious).

How would you know that Madrid “hardly played like a clay court” – have you played on a red clay court or is your perception influenced by certain whining players who cannot adapt to clay courts not within their specs? Too bad that Nadal and Djokovic were too incompetent to survive a meeting with Federer. In any case, Federer already straight-setted Nadal at 2009 Madrid on red clay. Not only did Federer straight set David Ferrer in 82 minutes (winning 58% of total points) – Federer’s five opponents had an average ranking of No. 12 (23, 18, 6, 8, 7), making Madrid the toughest line up of opponents faced by any Masters winner. Yet Federer won Madrid while playing with a hip injury! In comparison, Djokovic won Canada against a line up with an average ranking of No. 28 without Federer and Nadal in the field.

Of course “nole even reached 3 out of 4 HC finals, fed didn’t” because Federer WON FOUR hardcourt finals (Indian Wells, Cincinnati, Dubai, Rotterdam), lol!

This year Djokovic won only 3 titles (Australian Open, Miami, Canada) from 8 finals in 13 tournaments played. Lost French Open (F), US Open, (F), Wimbledon (SF), Monte Carlo (F), Rome (F), Cincinnati (F), Indian Wells (SF), Madrid (QF), Olympics (fourth place), Dubai (SF). Djokovic lost 11 matches: Murray (3), Nadal (3), Federer (2), Del Potro (1), Isner (1), Tipsarevic (1)

It’s opportunistic to make a big deal of Federer losing to Berdych at USO – his first loss to Berdych, Del Potro and Tsonga in 14 meetings – given how much effort Federer spent, during the US Open, on negotiating higher prize money for players with the grand slam organizers. The guy is a saint, working so hard during the US Open to alleviate the financial misery of early round losers and you nitpick his loss to berdych? HUH?:)


the DA Says:

One really fears for the state of his mind the day Fed decides to call it quits.


Huh Says:

Roger Federer
GS performance In 2012: 19-3(86%)
MS performance In 2012: 20-2(91)
Hard win-loss in 2012: 31-3(91%)
Grass win-loss in 2012L: 15-2(88%)(this record without facin nadal once!)
Clay win-loss in 2012: 15-3(83%)
Overall win loss: 61-8(88%)

Novak Djokovic
GS performance In 2012: 24-3 (88%) (better than fed)
MS performance In 2012: 29-5(86%) (regard be had to the fact that he had to face nadal on traditional clay in 2 MS finals)
Hard win-loss in 2012: 35-4(90%)(importantly he won 2 MS n reached both HC slam finals when all fed could manage is 2 MS n reached just semi n qtr in HC slams n unfortunately met determined n destined muzz or would’ve won both hc slams! So no question that nole’s done far better than fed here too)
Grass win-loss in 2012L: 9-3(75%) only surface where fed’s done truly better than nole this year)
Clay win-loss in 2012: 16-4(80%)(poor guy, thrashed fed on traditional clay but ended up facin a nadal on fire in 2 MS finals n the FO, it can’t get more unluckier! Still not done bad n won 80% matches n beat fed both the times in clay meetin, so no dispute that nole did fully better.)
Overall win loss: 60-11(not bad, just behind fed; actually much more impressive than fed considerin the above mentioned factors that account for his win-loss ratio in different surfaces)

Last but not the least, don’t bring up past 52 weeks coz the no-brainer to which I responded In the first place was whining that fed was the player of the year, lol. ;) but this year is 2012 for god’s sake! N fed has no way done better in 2012 than nole unless you’re a blind fed fan hell bent on takin away other’s credit!

No joke, but Djok in 2012! ;)


Huh Says:

Dave, by again advocatin for fed’s supposed supremacy in 2012, you proved that you’re the super idiot! :D

open your eyes n see: nole’s ahead of fed in 2012!

m not talkin abt 2011! and yes, i just read the 1st sentence of your lame post, not interested in readin the rest! pretty much show you dwell in your imahinary roger federer universe!

and nobody can make nole look worse than fed in the same way nobody can change the fact that nole heads the ATP in points race for 2012 n thus is better than fed! now get a life, or wait for the no-brainer to come from her hidin to adore you as usual, lol ;)

relax!


Huh Says:

as much as i actually admire Dave, it’s hard sometime not to criticise him! while all i’m sayin is m personally concerned about only the performance overall of players in 2012, some find peace in bringin up 2011 again n again, lol ;)

while everybody’ll agree that fed has done better than rest in pickin up points in the past 52 weeks, thanks to his tear away brilliant performance in 2011 fall, 2012 is another story and nole has done just enough to keep the rest at bay from this year start n emerge out at the player of 2012!

Fed clearly has a chance to retain his no.1 rank till year end n emerge out as the most accomplished player of 2012, until he has done it, nole is the man! I’m not here referring to nole as player of the year so far in the sense of the year being limited to the past 52 weeks but I refer to him as such purely in the sense of what he has done so far in 2012 only, n as the points race suggest, he leads the tour in 2012 in that respect. So end of story until new story written by fed by year end!

AND TO DAVE:

Look, I actually consider you an informed poster and respect you and like your posts a lot for their methodical presentation backed with facts in most of the cases. Thus I don’t want to engage in condescendin arguments with you. It doesn’t matter to me what others think, but nole’s done better than fed in 2012, n that’s what’s important! Sienna provoked my post by indirectly referring to me as no-brainer in her post in this thread for my comment posted in a previous thread. So I naturally hit out! There was no need for you to show your over-intellect by buttin in by supportin sienna who started name-csllin in this particular thread first, n that too when all thet you post is irrelevant w.r.t. my contention of nole being better performer than fed in 2012. I’m not bothered about last 52 weeks, I’m concerned about this year only, even if it means that’s less than the 52 weeks that you cling to! So, stay away from getting in between me n sienna or anybody else insultin me by postin things irrelevant to the particular topic which concerns me, or agree with me regardin the facts that I post. If you can’t do either, then don’t read my post as that’s mostly nonsensical n idiotic to you, n stop respondin. And I take back my ‘’super-idiot’’ tag directed at you. You deserve better than that as you’ve quite a few things to say to silent some anti-feds as well as educate each n everyone here in same manner. So accept your high position in my eyes as well as in the eyes of quite a few others n act like that. I don’t expect sienna’s ramblings from you, to be quite honest. Whether you think m sincere or insincere in tis respect, is upto you. I said what I’ve to. Regards…


Huh Says:

sorry to Dave if he took offense by my passionate reply when i called him ”super-idiot”, i shouldn’t have said that to him n i feel bad n ashamed about it. this is coz from whatever little i have seen of dave, i have never seen him being juvenile or disrespectful to posters, that’s why i say sorry.


Polo Says:

No matter how I look at it and in spite of any kilometric dissection of the case, Djokovic still appears the best player of 2012 for me and to many others. If it consoles anybody to think that Federer has done better than Djokovic in the past 12 months, that’s fine. I will let him live in his own reality.


Tennislover Says:

I am sorry if someone else has posted the link before but for those who are interested in the 2012 player of the year debate, here is a link to a pretty good discussion. There are some very good comments from some posters as well. One of them presents a good case for Murray. Of course, the season is yet to get over but I think it is worth a read.

http://tennis.si.com/2012/09/20/toss-roger-federer-novak-djokovic-atp-player-of-year/


Huh Says:

THE STORY OF THIS YEAR, OF THIS SEASON OF 2012:-

FEDERER VS DJOKOVIC

1 IN HC:

NOLE’S AO+USO Final + Miami+ Montreal+ Cincinnati Final+ Indian Wells Semi>> FED’S AO semi + USO Qtr+ Indian Wells + Cincinnati+ Miami semi(perhaps)+Dubai

So nole’s the BOSS on HC! :D

2.IN CLAY
NOLE’S MC Final + Rome Final+ FO fina(all the time losin just to none other than nadal)l>> FED’S so-called clay court MS win+ rome semi+ FO semi
As fed no way deserved a clay MS this season more than nole, he got his justice at the hands of Nole by a straight set drubbing

3. IN GRASS
Fed was defitely FAR superior to Nole with his BEAUTIFUL WIMBY n OLYMPIC SILVER, so that’s GREAT for FED!!! :D

4. Nole held no.1 rank for 1st 6 months while fed has held it just for the last 3 months, so unless fed’s actually able to hold it longer, there’s no argument that even here Nole>> Fed

5. In 2012 point rac, Nole heads fed by som 1000 points, so here also no argument that NoLE’S Superior.

CONCLUSION:
As Nole has the upperhand of Fed in 4 outta 5 categories, there cannot be any other debate on the fact of this year that NOLE>FED in 2012…


Huh Says:

I mean fed got his justice in the hands fo nole in the FO 12 by a straight set… you know what! ;)


Huh Says:

damn well sadi Polo! :D


Huh Says:

i mean damn well said Polo! :D


Polo Says:

There better be some interesting tournaments with the top guys playing very soon. Let them do the fighting on court instead of us here. Sometimes I feel like I’m in a merry-go-round that keeps turning and turning without going anywhere. This long lull is not good for our psyche.


sienna Says:

Huh Says:
Roger Federer
GS performance In 2012: 19-3(86%)
MS performance In 2012: 20-2(91)
Hard win-loss in 2012: 31-3(91%)
Grass win-loss in 2012L: 15-2(88%)(this record without facin nadal once!)
Clay win-loss in 2012: 15-3(83%)
Overall win loss: 61-8(88%)

Novak Djokovic
GS performance In 2012: 24-3 (88%) (better than fed)
MS performance In 2012: 29-5(86%) (regard be had to the fact that he had to face nadal on traditional clay in 2 MS finals)
Hard win-loss in 2012: 35-4(90%)(importantly he won 2 MS n reached both HC slam finals when all fed could manage is 2 MS n reached just semi n qtr in HC slams n unfortunately met determined n destined muzz or would’ve won both hc slams! So no question that nole’s done far better than fed here too)
Grass win-loss in 2012L: 9-3(75%) only surface where fed’s done truly better than nole this year)
Clay win-loss in 2012: 16-4(80%)(poor guy, thrashed fed on traditional clay but ended up facin a nadal on fire in 2 MS finals n the FO, it can’t get more unluckier! Still not done bad n won 80% matches n beat fed both the times in clay meetin, so no dispute that nole did fully better.)
Overall win loss: 60-11(not bad, just behind fed; actually much more impressive than fed considerin the above mentioned factors that account for his win-loss ratio in different surfac

SO how on earth are these stats in favor of Djoker? You put those stats up and Fed is winnng almost on ever surface / categorie.


Polo Says:

After reading Sienna’s analysis, I came to the conclusion that the best player so far for 2012 is: Djokovic. It’s not always about the quantity. Quality is the name of the game. As she said herself: “Grass win-loss in 2012L: 9-3(75%) only surface where fed’s done truly better than nole this year)”

I am a Federer fan. I give him his due when he deserves if. If he does not, I do not go into a state of denial. Fed has owned so many good years. There is no need to steal the thunder from somebody more deserving.


Huh Says:

Polo!!!

that wasn’t sienna’s analysis at all!! those stats alongwith the qualifications in brackets’re all my presentations!! sienna without understandin the context of those losses is actually askin me if stats on clay/HC/MS look in favour of fed, so how can nole be better than fed in that year!! in sienna’s previos post, only the last 2 sentences are hers, lol ;)

and you’re absolutely right, nole thou lost, at least nole the matches with highest stakes in clay n HC, unless fed who in the most important clay tournaments couldn’t do a thing aginst nole/rafa! same also in HC! nole performed better! so there it is, not as per my analysis, but as per facts that nole’s the king so far in 2012! :)


Huh Says:

lookin at the stats, nole’s 16-4 win loss record on clay for 2012 mayn’t look better than fed’s 15-3 win loss record, but the fact is nole had 3 of those 4 losses only against rafa in the most important clay tournies havin traditional clay n not the blue clay which rafa disapproved! n lookin at rafa’s performance at rome, RG n MC, it’s not hard to see that the blue clay of madrid was anything, but clay in orthodox sense! similar is the story in HC too, with the only difference bein nole’s done much better this year on HC than clay court, n fed’s performance in clay court even doesn’t compare to nole of 2012, let alone HC! so nothin more to be said, it’s crystal clear who’s done better in HC/Clay! it’s novak djokovic who’s still the best in 2012 n not anyone else, period!


Huh Says:

i said in my september 23 5.28 am post

”Grass win-loss in 2012L: 15-2(88%)(this record without facin nadal once!)
Clay win-loss in 2012: 15-3(83%)”.

but that’s not what i intended to say! i don’t care if fed didn’t face rafa in grass coz i don’t think fed can’t beat rafa on grass, any of them could beat each other on grass these days! so my ”(this record without facin nadal once!) should be read next to clay win-loss record in 2012.

thus in my sep 23 5.28 am post it should be read as

”Grass win-loss in 2012L: 15-2(88%)
Clay win-loss in 2012: 15-3(83%)(this record without facin nadal once!)”

THANKS! :D


sienna Says:

This is so funny . you guys are completely without any sound analytic skills whatsoever. A little slow on the taking also.
You give not for quantity but you give more credit to a losing player as to the most winningest player of the year.

Who has won most tournements in 2012?


sienna Says:

How on earth is it possible that someone can put up so many irrelevant stats in every comments written.

Huh change the monniker to Duh because that suits you better.


Polo Says:

Huh, my deepest apologies for crediting your work to somebody else.


Rafael Says:

So we all agree djokovic and federer are the 2 best players this year? Or maybe federer “fan” huh might suggest rafa/murray and maybe even david ferrer had a better year than federer?


sienna Says:

So after this enthrilling day of commentating huh’s name definetely changed into Duh. (Homer Simpson copyright)

My God never there was a poster with more stupid and utter nonsensical irrelevant material. post after post after post after post afterpost……..

No wonder he doesnot watch any tennis.He aint got the time.


grendel Says:

Huh

You are surely right to distinguish the blue clay of Madrid from traditional clay, see:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/tennis/article-2163671/Madrid-banned-using-blue-clay-courts.html, and note especially the comments of ATP president Brad Drewett.

However, both Djokovic and Nadal – as I posted at the time – were childish in their reaction to the unusual nature of the court. You have to salute Federer for his professionalism on that occasion, and I suspect Djokovic, a highly intelligent man, will privately have learnt from that. Djokovic in particular may be said to have paid a heavy price for his petulance – indeed the author of the following link suggests that his petulance on this occasion cost him his #1 status.http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1251742-novak-djokovic-ranked-no-2-blame-the-madrid-masters-blue-clay.

In general, you make a good case for Djokovic being the best (so far) in 2012. The best of the last 12 months is obviously Federer. At this stage, we can only guess who will emerge the best by the end of 2012. Guesswork is entertaining but without – shall we say – credibility.


sienna Says:

If we truly want to know which player has the best year to date we must look at how much each of the players actually have won. And equally of importance at which point of the year have they won the tourneys.

As all the top 4 players have won their slam it is up to the masters to determine the year to date best player.

With 3 masters on the three masters stretches we had Roger has set himself apart from Novak, and Rafa both stuck on 2 masters. And both winning 1 master as Roger the winningest player was not attending. Of course Rafa did not attend teh fast Masters in NA but clearly he would have lost prior to 1/4 finals in those tourneys.

Roger backed his commending lead in the year so far by winning Dubai. Giving him again a tourney victory where Novak was present and where Novak could not have the guts to face the Mighty.

Als R’dam as thebiggest indoor tourney so far is a different note to credit Fed. He wins tehm all it seems/

Clay, gras, fast hardcourt, slow hardcourts, indoor and outdoor No other player can put forward those numbers and clearly by a landslide thus far Roger Federer is the best player till date.

No other way around. it is winning tounrments that decides which player has the best year. Not losing semie or losing finalists.A bit sad if you ask me if you want to determine a loser for the best player. hehehe


Huh Says:

dear sienna

ya stayin true to your form n postin jokes of posts as usual to giv your tennis-x friends their laughs for the day! thanks, hahaha!!!

becoz ther r facts that expos ur fallacy n lies, u start ur nonstop nanana, so you should first of al chang your name to ‘ms/mrs nanana”!

1000000s of your nanana can’t change the fact that novak is the man so far in 2012, hahaha!

———-

n Rafael, ahh, i expectd dumb responses from som bitter fed fans on my posts which prov beyond reasonabl doubt novak’s supremacy in 2012; n m not surprised that u gave me one super dumb post! :D


sienna Says:

Duh??

Lying in my book is something a poster on tennis x does when he is so full of it and knows axactly how the final of US Open played out and why certain things happened and that same poster was asking to be kept updated with livescoring during that same final. And not for only a set or a period of times. You asked for the scores and how the faired throughout the final. Afterwords you were one of the key posters in determining and showing how it all panned out.

Laso you clim that I bring lies to the table! WHere?

Tennis looks first at slams, second at WTF (yet to be decided) third masters, Olympic, 500 series etc…

You understand how it works. A player wants to win badly in that particular order.
Losers do not get any praise in the winners circle.

Only if a player gets a certain accomplishment like all 4 slam finals or 23 semi finals straight without missing a slam. So in that way Novak is doing just great with his 11th semi. But that doesnot hold any impact for this year. He will need to do this a few more years in order to be on par with Federer.

SO the year itself 2012 can never be determinded by a guy losing 2 out of 3 slamfinals. the last two masters but actually the yearend championship will determine who had the best year.

If Novak wins 1 more master where Fed is not present but Fed will win WTF then you bet they both know who had the best year of them.

Fed will have cleaned him out. Novak surely was the best possible player to win whenever FED was not present, But Fed will have gotten the greater awards.

I am sorry that is the way it is. Winning trophees is priority of course winning them in the big events is priority.
Till now Fed has won the most and biggest tournements so he is by a landslide the player of the year.


Dave Says:

Huh: You need to calm down instead of babbling prematurely about ‘player of the year’. It does not matter if you provide a hundred micro-measures to try to justify which player you think is ahead, because your vacuous views are ultimately irrelevant.

In my opinion, you are a monumental idiot with an oversized ego who is so hyperactive you can’t even keep your thoughts on one post. It’s not just to Sienna, but your arrogant, nutty replies to posters like Leon are uncalled for (e.g., see your post September 23rd, 2012 at 3:25 am). I will respond to whatever I feel like responding, whether or not you like it — get it?

At end March 2012, do you know who was ‘leading’ your ‘points race’? Roger Federer (2,820), Djokovic (2,540), Nadal (1,800)… Murray was sixth after Ferrer and Delpo! So, according to your thinking: ‘fed’s ahead of nole and rafa … murray, is a dud’. What did I tell everybody then? Don’t write off Murray because of Lendl. Over a month before that time I had already predicted Federer’s likely return to No.1 by summer and I also predicted 4 different players were likely to win all the 4 slams this year — in contrast to the views of the majority who felt it would be a two horse race between Rafa and Novak.

It is as monumentally stupid to brag “nole’s ahead of fed in 2012!” after the US Open as it was monumentally stupid to brag, after the French Open, that “rafa’s ahead of djokovic and fed in 2012!”. Indeed there were several moronic analysts who predicted Nadal would just win Wimbledon and return to No.1 — after all, after the French Open, Nadal had 6,750 year-to-date points, Djokovic 6,120 YTD points and Federer 4,945 YTD points. Like you, they overrated Nadal at Wimbledon. It was clear to me that Federer had build his surge around Wimbledon, had the tools to beat Nadal on grass (just like he did at Indian Wells), and had expected to add 2,250 YTD points from Halle and Wimbledon. Those who were fixated on Nadal were blind to what Federer was going to do.

Use some common sense to ask yourself: why don’t the smart people at ATP think like you and jump to conclusions like “nole’s ahead of fed in 2012!” or “nole heads the ATP in points race for 2012″ “or sure it’s Djokovic who leads the year-to-date rankings in 2012” or whichever other moronic way you represent this season? That’s because they have been through countless dynamic seasons and they know that the season is not over till it’s over: they know that in a dynamic season where there are several excellent players there will be ebbs and flow and ebbs and flows between the players. About one-quarter of the season still remains, and different players tend to shine in different parts of the season. Federer tends to succeed in this part of the season whenever he wants and this tends to be Djokovic’s worst part of the season. That’s why the smart people at ATP do not present the year-to-date points as a “points race for 2012″ because it is misleading.

Ultimately, your views are irrelevant. Who is going to be No.1 will be decided by the 52-week rankings process and who is going to be Player of The Year 2012 will be chosen according to the ATP’s criteria.

1. There is no ‘Player of the Year’ yet because (a) the season has not yet ended and (b) no player has yet won the season (i.e., currently there is no mathematically certain year-end No.1 player AND the top four players equally have won one grand slam each). The possibility still exists for any of the top three players to win the season, though Djokovic and Federer are the two most likely candidates.

2. The year-end No. 1 ranking will be decided by the official ATP 52-week ranking process, and that player will be the ATP World Tour No. 1. The year-end No. 1 will is simply the official ATP 52-week World rankings at that point of the year. The two front runners are Djokovic and Federer. If this continues to be the case (barring a miraculous winning streak by Murray) and Federer wins about 1,100 points more than Djokovic over the next two months, Roger will end with the most points and wins the year end No. 1 ranking. If Federer is unable to win an extra 1,100 points more than Djokovic, then Djokovic wins the No.1 ranking. Simple as that.

3. Whoever wins the year-end No.1 ranking will likely be awarded ATP Player Of The Year — whether or not he wins the World Tour Finals — since the four slams are shared by four different players, including the front runners. Of course it would be preferable if the POTY also won the WTF in addition to the year-end No. 1 ranking, given it is the fifth most prestigious championship. Regardless, the POTY will be selected by the ATP using its criteria, which will be based on the precedents of how it has selected the POTY since this awarded was incepted in 1975. The primary criteria the ATP will use are (1) year-end No.1 world ranking and (2) number of slams won. Only if a player WINS more slams does it become a factor in choosing POTY (it’s not enough just to reach grand slam finals) — but if all four players have one slam each then the player with the No.1 ranking is the POTY. That’s logical because the world ranking points already factor in the World Tour Finals 1,500, other grand slam finals 1,200 reached, Masters 1000 results, etc. during the immediate past 52 weeks.

Listen up: no matter how much you huhff and puhff, your criteria are irrelevant. You obviously do not understand how the ATP chooses the POTY. It does not matter that Djokovic reached three or four or five slam finals or that Djokovic beat the hip-injured Federer on red clay, blah, blah, blah.

Here is a summary on how the ATP has chosen (and will probably continue to choose) the ATP Player Of The Year since the inception of this award in 1975:

Case A: In the majority of cases, the POTY was awarded to the player who is year-end No. 1 and has more grand slam titles than other players, e.g., Federer, Nadal and Djokovic since 2004.

Case B: Where four different players won only one slam (each without reaching another slam final), the No. 1 player with one slam was awarded POTY: e.g., 1985 (Lendl), 1990 (Edberg), 1996 (Sampras), 1998 (Sampras), 2001 (Hewitt), 2002 (Hewitt)

Case C: Where four different players won one slam each (but the No. 2 or lower-ranked player also reached another slam final), the No. 1 player with only one slam and no other slam final was still awarded POTY (except in 1976):

- In 1991, No.1 Stefan Edberg with only one slam (USO) was awarded POTY over No. 2 Jim Courier with one slam (FO) and one slam final (USO) as well as over No. 3 Boris Becker with one slam (AO) and one slam final (W). Edberg had 3,515 points, 76-17, 6 titles over Courier’s 3,205 points, 58-20, 3 titles.

- In 2000 No. 1 Kuerten with one slam (FO) and YEC was awarded POTY over No. 3 Sampras with one slam (W) and one slam final (USO). 810 ranking points separated both players.

- In 2003 No. 1 Roddick with only one slam (USO) was awarded POTY over No. 3 Ferrero with one slam (FO) and one slam final (USO). Only 330 ranking points separated both players. Roddick had 4,535 points, 71-18, 6 titles over Ferrero’s 4,205 points, 62-21, 3 titles.

- In 1983 McEnroe with only one slam (W) was awarded player of the year over No. 4 Wilander with one slam (AO) and one slam final (FO).

Case D: If No. 2 player had more slams than No.1 player, he was awarded POTY (except in 1977 and 1975):

- In 1978, No. 2 Bjorn Borg with two slams was awarded POTY over No. 1 Jimmy Connors with one slam

- In 1982, No. 2 Jimmy Connors with two slams was awarded POTY over No. 1 John McEnroe with zero slam

- In 1989, No. 2 Boris Becker with two slams was awarded POTY over No. 1 Ivan Lendl with one slam.

Case E: There were three anomalies in the first three years of the POTY (all involving Jimmy Connors who was disliked by the ATP).

- In 1975, No. 4 Arthur Ashe with one slam (W) was awarded POTY over No. 3 Borg with one slam (FO) as well as over No. 1 Connors with zero slams and three slam finals (AO, W, USO)

- In 1976, No. 2 Bjorn Borg with one slam (W) and one slam final (USO) was awarded POTY over No. 1 Connors with one slam (USO),

- In 1977, No. 3 Bjorn Borg with only one slam (W) was awarded POTY over No 2 Guillermo Vilas with two slams (FO, USO), one slam final (AO) and 16 titles as well as over No. 1 Connors with YEC, zero slams and two slam finals (W, USO).

I don’t expect you to understand or accept anything I have said. But I had to say it for the sake of many others who might have been misinformed by you.


Dave Says:

Huh: You need to calm down instead of babbling prematurely about ‘player of the year’. It does not matter if you provide a hundred micro-measures to try to justify which player you think is ahead, because your vacuous views are ultimately irrelevant.

In my opinion, you are a monumental idiot with an oversized ego who is so hyperactive you can’t even keep your thoughts on one post. It’s not just to Sienna, but your arrogant replies to posters like Leon are uncalled for (e.g., see your post September 23rd, 2012 at 3:25 am). I will respond to whatever I feel like responding, whether or not you like it — get it?

At end March 2012, do you know who was ‘leading’ your ‘points race’? Roger Federer (2,820), Djokovic (2,540), Nadal (1,800)… Murray was sixth after Ferrer and Delpo! So, according to your thinking: ‘fed’s ahead of nole and rafa … murray, is a dud’. What did I tell everybody then? Don’t write off Murray because of Lendl. Over a month before that time I had already predicted Federer’s likely return to No.1 by summer and I also predicted 4 different players were likely to win all the 4 slams this year — in contrast to the views of the majority who felt it would be a two horse race between Rafa and Novak.

It is as monumentally stupid to brag “nole’s ahead of fed in 2012!” after the US Open as it was monumentally stupid to brag, after the French Open, that “rafa’s ahead of djokovic and fed in 2012!”. Indeed there were several moronic analysts who predicted Nadal would just win Wimbledon and return to No.1 — after all, after the French Open, Nadal had 6,750 year-to-date points, Djokovic 6,120 YTD points and Federer 4,945 YTD points. Like you, they overrated Nadal at Wimbledon. It was clear to me that Federer had build his surge around Wimbledon, had the tools to beat Nadal on grass (just like he did at Indian Wells), and had expected to add 2,250 YTD points from Halle and Wimbledon. Those who were fixated on Nadal were blind to what Federer was going to do.

Use some common sense to ask yourself: why don’t the smart people at ATP think like you and jump to conclusions like “nole’s ahead of fed in 2012!” or “nole heads the ATP in points race for 2012″ “or sure it’s Djokovic who leads the year-to-date rankings in 2012” or whichever other moronic way you represent this season? That’s because they have been through countless dynamic seasons and they know that the season is not over till it’s over: they know that in a dynamic season where there are several excellent players there will be ebbs and flow and ebbs and flows between the players. About one-quarter of the season still remains, and different players tend to shine in different parts of the season. Federer tends to succeed in this part of the season whenever he wants and this tends to be Djokovic’s worst part of the season. That’s why the smart people at ATP do not present the year-to-date points as a “points race for 2012″ because it is misleading.


Dave Says:

Huh: ultimately, your criteria and views are irrelevant, no matter how much you huhff and puhff. You obviously do not understand how the ATP chooses the POTY. It does not matter that Djokovic reached three or four or five slam finals or that Djokovic beat the hip-injured Federer on red clay, blah, blah, blah.

Who is going to be No.1 will be decided by the 52-week rankings process and who is going to be Player of The Year 2012 will be chosen according to the ATP’s criteria.

1. There is no ‘Player of the Year’ yet because (a) the season has not yet ended and (b) no player has yet won the season (i.e., currently there is no mathematically certain year-end No.1 player AND the top four players equally have won one grand slam each). The possibility still exists for any of the top three players to win the season, though Djokovic and Federer are the two most likely candidates.

2. The year-end No. 1 ranking will be decided by the official ATP 52-week ranking process, and that player will be the ATP World Tour No. 1. The year-end No. 1 will is simply the official ATP 52-week World rankings at that point of the year. The two front runners are Djokovic and Federer. If this continues to be the case (barring a miraculous winning streak by Murray) and Federer wins about 1,100 points more than Djokovic over the next two months, Roger will end with the most points and wins the year end No. 1 ranking. If Federer is unable to win an extra 1,100 points more than Djokovic, then Djokovic wins the No.1 ranking. Simple as that.

3. Whoever wins the year-end No.1 ranking will likely be awarded ATP Player Of The Year — whether or not he wins the World Tour Finals — since the four slams are shared by four different players, including the front runners. Of course it would be preferable if the POTY also won the WTF in addition to the year-end No. 1 ranking, given it is the fifth most prestigious championship. Regardless, the POTY will be selected by the ATP using its criteria, which will be based on the precedents of how it has selected the POTY since this awarded was incepted in 1975. The primary criteria the ATP will use are (1) year-end No.1 world ranking and (2) number of slams won. Only if a player WINS more slams does it become a factor in choosing POTY (it’s not enough just to reach grand slam finals) — but if all four players have one slam each then the player with the No.1 ranking is the POTY. That’s logical because the world ranking points already factor in the World Tour Finals 1,500, other grand slam finals 1,200 reached, Masters 1000 results, etc. during the immediate past 52 weeks.

Here is a summary on how the ATP has chosen (and will probably continue to choose) the ATP Player Of The Year since the inception of this award in 1975:

Case A: In the majority of cases, the POTY was awarded to the player who is year-end No. 1 and has more grand slam titles than other players, e.g., Federer, Nadal and Djokovic since 2004.

Case B: Where four different players won only one slam (each without reaching another slam final), the No. 1 player with one slam was awarded POTY: e.g., 1985 (Lendl), 1990 (Edberg), 1996 (Sampras), 1998 (Sampras), 2001 (Hewitt), 2002 (Hewitt)

Case C: Where four different players won one slam each (but the No. 2 or lower-ranked player also reached another slam final), the No. 1 player with only one slam and no other slam final was still awarded POTY (except in 1976):

- In 1991, No.1 Stefan Edberg with only one slam (USO) was awarded POTY over No. 2 Jim Courier with one slam (FO) and one slam final (USO) as well as over No. 3 Boris Becker with one slam (AO) and one slam final (W). Edberg had 3,515 points, 76-17, 6 titles over Courier’s 3,205 points, 58-20, 3 titles.

- In 2000 No. 1 Kuerten with one slam (FO) and YEC was awarded POTY over No. 3 Sampras with one slam (W) and one slam final (USO). 810 ranking points separated both players.

- In 2003 No. 1 Roddick with only one slam (USO) was awarded POTY over No. 3 Ferrero with one slam (FO) and one slam final (USO). Only 330 ranking points separated both players. Roddick had 4,535 points, 71-18, 6 titles over Ferrero’s 4,205 points, 62-21, 3 titles.

- In 1983 McEnroe with only one slam (W) was awarded player of the year over No. 4 Wilander with one slam (AO) and one slam final (FO).

Case D: If No. 2 player had more slams than No.1 player, he was awarded POTY (except in 1977 and 1975):

- In 1978, No. 2 Bjorn Borg with two slams was awarded POTY over No. 1 Jimmy Connors with one slam

- In 1982, No. 2 Jimmy Connors with two slams was awarded POTY over No. 1 John McEnroe with zero slam

- In 1989, No. 2 Boris Becker with two slams was awarded POTY over No. 1 Ivan Lendl with one slam.

Case E: There were three anomalies in the first three years of the POTY (all involving Jimmy Connors who was disliked by the ATP).

- In 1975, No. 4 Arthur Ashe with one slam (W) was awarded POTY over No. 3 Borg with one slam (FO) as well as over No. 1 Connors with zero slams and three slam finals (AO, W, USO)

- In 1976, No. 2 Bjorn Borg with one slam (W) and one slam final (USO) was awarded POTY over No. 1 Connors with one slam (USO),

- In 1977, No. 3 Bjorn Borg with only one slam (W) was awarded POTY over No 2 Guillermo Vilas with two slams (FO, USO), one slam final (AO) and 16 titles as well as over No. 1 Connors with YEC, zero slams and two slam finals (W, USO).


Dave Says:

Huh: You need to calm down. It does not matter if you provide a hundred micro-measures to try to justify which player you prematurely think is ahead, because your vacuous views are ultimately irrelevant since you don’t get to decide who is ahead.

In my opinion, you are a huge hyperactive i-d-i-o-t with an oversized ego who is so hyperactive you can’t even keep your thoughts on one post. It’s not just to Sienna, but your arrogant replies to posters like Leon are uncalled for (e.g., see your post September 23rd, 2012 at 3:25 am). I will respond to whatever I feel like responding, whether or not you like it — get it?

At end March 2012, Federer was ‘leading’ your ‘points race’. Federer (2,820), Djokovic (2,540), Nadal (1,800)… Murray was sixth after Ferrer and Delpo! So, according to your thinking: ‘fed’s ahead of nole and rafa but murray, is a loser’. What did I tell everybody then? Don’t write off Murray because of Lendl. Over a month before that time I had already predicted Federer’s likely return to No.1 by summer and I also predicted 4 different players were likely to win all the 4 slams this year — in contrast to the views of the majority who felt it would be a two horse race between Rafa and Novak.

It is as monumentally silly to brag “nole’s ahead of fed in 2012!” after the US Open as it was monumentally silly to brag, after the French Open, that “rafa’s ahead of djokovic and fed in 2012!”. Indeed there were several small-thinking analysts who predicted Nadal would just win Wimbledon and return to No.1 — after all, after the French Open, Nadal had 6,750 year-to-date points, Djokovic 6,120 YTD points and Federer 4,945 YTD points. Like you, they overrated Nadal at Wimbledon. It was clear to me that Federer had build his surge around Wimbledon, had the tools to beat Nadal on grass (just like he did at Indian Wells), and had expected to add 2,250 YTD points from Halle and Wimbledon. Those who were fixated on Nadal were blind to what Federer was going to do.

Use some common sense to ask yourself: why don’t the smart people at ATP think like you and jump to conclusions like “nole’s ahead of fed in 2012!” or “nole heads the ATP in points race for 2012″ “or sure it’s Djokovic who leads the year-to-date rankings in 2012” or whichever other way you represent this season? That’s because they have been through countless dynamic seasons and they know that the season is not over till it’s over: they know that in a dynamic season where there are several excellent players there will be ebbs and flow and ebbs and flows between the players. About one-quarter of the season still remains, and different players tend to shine in different parts of the season. Federer tends to succeed in this part of the season whenever he wants and this tends to be Djokovic’s worst part of the season. That’s why the smart people at ATP do not present the year-to-date points as a “points race for 2012″ because it is misleading.


grendel Says:

It is perfectly normal English to say that as of now, so and so has been the stand out player of the year. Nothing need be thereby implied about who will emerge on top by the end of the year. It’s not really so very different, in principle, as saying: so and so was definitely the player of June. This is the way normal people talk. The rules of the ATP and so on have nothing to do with it.


sienna Says:

Grendel and Federer would be named that player because he has won the most of the big tournements.


Polo Says:

Even though Djokovic has been the best player so far this year, I’m just happy that Federer got his number one ranking back to surpass Sampras’ record of most weeks at number one as well as equaling his Wimbledon titles record. I was not expecting Federer to accomplish those so those were surprise gifts from him. Djokovic, Murray and Nadal, if his knees hold up, will probably distance themselves farther away from Roger next year. He’ll probably lose more frequently to other players outside those 3, like Berdych for one.


sienna Says:

that is right Polo. You underestimated Roger and did not think he could do what he did the past 52 weeks.

And what do you do? In the same sentence you do it again. LOL. haha what a ridiculous comment that is. You dont know what will happen the next 52 weeks.

Berdych had beaten Fed before and he has lost to him manymore times.
So I do not see anything that would change in that order. If Fed is willing (and he sounds like he is) and able(well who will doubt that only morons and idiots) he will go on and dominate menstennis for the next 2 years at least.

Without the problems of post Wimbly Olympic Fed looks not for 1 slam but maybe 2 next year. His US Open certainly got deteriorated by the olympic effort he put in his semi.

I am sure his younger opponents will not make the stupid mistake you seem to make twice. It just shows your lack of tennis knowledge about top players and about the difficulty those guys face when making the tennis year happen.

Actually I am not at all impressed by your insightfull remarks about Djo Murray Badal distancing themself from Federer. That is probably based on hope and desperation as to common sense and ability to read the game of tennis.


Jannet Says:

I think novak will end as number one, he has a 1000 point lead in the 2012 ranking race and will play 5 tournaments compared to 3/4 that roger will play. To me it doesn’t really matter who end at number one, all I want is for feddy to dominate the indoor season, something I think he will do. He is just the best indoor player in the world.


Steve 27 Says:

The player of the year is the one who earned more points until the last tournament (WTF). Until now is Djokovic. Let see what happen for the last two months of the season


alison Says:

I have to say im delighted as a tennis fan,this has been a teriffic year for me personally,my favorite player won the FO for a record 7th time,and my second favorite won his 1st GS at the USO,OK niether will finish the year as the world no 1,but personally i dont care.


alison Says:

LOL At the last sentence of Siennas post,actually i am not at all impressed by your insightful remarks about Djo,Murray,Badal(i presume you meant Nadal)distancing themselves from Federer.That is based on hope and desperation as to common sense and ability to read the game.Correct me if im wrong this is an open internet forum,people are free to say whatever they wish,just like you are free to say whatever you wish,i was not aware that people had to seek other peoples approval or permission.


Polo Says:

Sienna, there is a one word answer to your comment about my opinion: DENIAL


steve-o Says:

Federer’s the champion of champions. He cannot be measured by the conventional standards set by champions of the past; he is the one setting the standard by which others will be measured.

Not only is his game the most complete, but his will to win and motivation are unquenchable, and his professionalism in managing his career and making wise decisions is superb. This means he can keep playing at championship level for a very long time indeed.

Just because those past champions suffered from certain limitations doesn’t mean that he will. His mark is quite far ahead of theirs.

If Agassi can be top ten and making Grand Slam finals at age 35, then Federer can be #1 and winning Grand Slam finals at age 35.

Best just to give him some space and let him do his thing rather than say things like “surely the younger players will distance themselves from him next year” and be proven wrong. He’s just as likely to distance himself from them–by winning even more than he did this year.

Of course, being proven wrong about Federer just seems to encourage people to redouble their naysaying efforts. People are obsessed with putting limits on him for some reason. They cling rigidly to their preconceived ideas of what greatness ought to be, to narrowly circumscribed notions of what’s possible. “Greatness is this, can only go as far as this” they bleat obstinately as they point to some arbitrary line someone else drew in the sand. “So that’s why Federer can’t go beyond.”

To them, I say: no, greatness is what Federer is doing. So just watch and enjoy instead of wigging out about what you think is impossible. Life’s much more enjoyable that way.


sienna Says:

Listen I know you all like to stir the pot but it is starting to get really silly.

FED HAS WON 1 Slam and 3 masters on all surfaces.
He also has 2 500 for good meassures.

Indoor outdoor fast/slow hc gras clay….. No other player can come up with those numbers.

Are we crediting losers for best player awards? Dont be stupid.


grendel Says:

Polo, Sienna has a point – you and I, and plenty of others, were proved mistaken about Federer in 2012. Will history repeat itself? You never know…..Actually, it will be even tougher for Federer in 2013, since we may expect a refreshed Nadal with a great deal to prove, a seasoned and more formidable Murray, a Djokovic determined to establish himself as unequivocally the best, a Berdych who is steadily gaining in stature, a del Potro keen to show he’s not out of it yet and finally – a Federer who is even older!

So if you didn’t bet on Federer for this year, you’ve got even less reason to do so in the coming year. Imagine changing your mind, and then Federer really does start to fade away….

But then there is another scenario, deeply nightmarish for some. The date is September 2018. Federer is 37 and celebrating having for the 3rd time recovered the #1 ranking. Nadal has retired, Murray and Djokovic are veterans who are struggling now to reach the semis of the slams. Berdych has emerged in all his glory and he and Federer are battling it out at the top. Raonic, Nishikori and the brilliant young Dubcek are pressing hard. The question is: who will be at the summit next year? Polo and grendel, having got their fingers burnt for the last 6 years, have finally conceded and wearily agree that Federer is favourite ……


sienna Says:

FED will definitely stay on top of the ranking or in touching distance for the next 2 years. Atleast 2 more slams can be attained from 8.

Already the declining nadal is in a worse state then Fed.

Fed is mentally still so fresh as a daisy. Nadal is feeling it very heavy also hislife is at a standstill. Nadal will pull the plug before Fed. His desire has 2 gone and he wants different things in life.


Polo Says:

I was happily surprised to be proven wrong about Federer in 2012. But his 2012 is not a banner year when compared with the years when he was at his peak, winning 3 majors a year and getting into finals, or at least the semifinals in all majors. The past couple of years, except Wimbledon this year, he did not do very well in slam events. How else will I call that but a decline in his career trajectory. He is very good and will probably win a major or two in the coming years but that is not something I can state with certainty unlike when he was at his peak. I could predict then that he will win a major or two and I would come up more right than wrong.


Adam Says:

Here’s something incredibly relavent.
Lendl told Murray that he believes that the Olympics is bigger than than any Grand slam, except maybe Wimbledon, because Murray is British.
When are any of the top players ever gonna have the chance to match that – Never.
That is a once in a lifetime deal.
Federer was obsessed with winning the Olmpics ever since


Adam Says:

Federer was obsesed with winning the gold medal ever since London was awarded the games in 1995 and was saying he was so excited he could sleep earlier this year. Agassi said in The Telegraph if he could keep just one trophy, he would keep the gold medal he won at Atlanta in 1996. Not any od his grand slams. and remember he won all 4. Federer would swap his Wimbledon 2012 victory for Murray’s Gold Medal in 2012 in a heart beat. But he can’t have it – Go Muzzard!!!!


Alok Says:

Polo Says:
Even though Djokovic has been the best player so far this year, I’m just happy that Federer got his number one ranking back to surpass Sampras’ record of most weeks at number one as well as equaling his Wimbledon titles record.”

———–
Same here. Fed’s accomplished so much, that he has nothing else left to prove to the nay-sayers. I wish him well and hope he can play for a while longer so that we, his fans, can watch his beautiful tennis.


Huh Says:

whats up here??


Huh Says:

lolololol!


Huh Says:

moderation is a b….!


Huh Says:

hey peopl, let one of my responses to the moro_ dave be here for christ’s sake n stop moderation!


Huh Says:

DAVE:

Resondin to u after readin the first two lines of some of your recent posts on this thread…

I merely doubted that you’re both idio_ n mor_nic until you actually confirmed it finally! Didn’t you read I already ignored your posts from the very time you posted your trash about the last 52 weeks which’ve no relevance whatsoever to decide that who has emerged as the best performer of 2012 so far(that I posted)! What were u doin when each of the player stated at the beginning of this year that they’ll start anew! And they actually did! Listen, obviously you excel at incredibly dumb long posts which concern mainly with praisin federer n discreditin others! That’s not my stuff! I would giv credit only where it’s due, unlike you!

AND YEAH, STUFF UP THE FEDERER PERFORMANCE OF FALL OF 2011 UP YOUR @$$ AS IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH WHO ACCUMULATES MOST POINTS TO END UP AS THE PLAYER OF 2012! Novak’s actually ahead of federer so far in accumulatin points n have won a slam, reached 3 slam finals, won masters n reached more MS finals(particularly sad for him was facin nadal in his den in 2 ms finals on clay!)! And stupids like you need to admit it that unless and until fed is able to superced nole in points race and accumulate most points to end up as ATP Player of the year 2012, he’s not the best player coz nole has in fact accumulated more points based on his 2012 performance than any other player on tour n has done actually better than fed on court, doesn’t matter if not in your screwed mind!

And stop whining like an angry b…. n deal with facts, not make it up or distort it nor introduce your lies/spin! The last time the sane, intelligent & calm people checked, THERE IS NO AWARD FOR ‘’IDIO_ DAVE’S PLAYER FOR THE PAST 52 WEEKS’’, but for the ATP Player of The Year only! And I’m actually waitin to see who ends up as the champion for 2012 instead of comin up with lame posts as to why you think fed always is no.1 in the world! So far nole leads the tour in 2012 points race! Unless n until fed’s able to accumulate more points by the year end, it’s going to be nole! And if fed by end of 12 has max points, then he ends as the player of the year as he hss the precious Wimbledon which’s the most important thing in tennis. But that’s to happen first of all in real world and not just in the mind of any luna_ic or mani_c!

KNOW IT NOW: I’ve not been readin the bulk of your laughable posts on this thread since the time I made it clear that I’ve not read your drivel in response to my post after readin just your first 2 sentences: so you need to know that your posts here since then they are for other reader here, not me! I even tendered apology for callin u idi_, but u made me realize that your lunac_ needs to be countered by sanity, your idioc_ by intelligence n your narcissism n reckless disregard for other’s mind/sentiments need to be countered with utter disrespect n condemned in the rudest possible manner.


Huh Says:

nanana(former sienna)

you can complain, you can cry, you can lament, you can hate, but that doesn’t change that so far nole’s better than fed in 2012! u cannot deny it thou u r not in a mental condition to admit it! ;)


skeezer Says:

@Adam,

So what is your point? Old news. Yes, Fed had his eye on the Olympics in London very early on and wanted to win it. It was important to him . He didn’t. So?


Alok Says:

I think Fed would swap a wimbledon title for a Gold medal but only because he’s a multiple wimbledon winner. However, for any player not having a Wimbledon title, I’m sure they would prefer it to a gold medal. That’s just my thinking, because a player’s greatness is measured by grand slam wins.


skeezer Says:

@alok

Exactly. You look up records in Tennis, Oly vs Slams? No contest.

However, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and in this era Olympics is for sure a prestige trophy for a Tennis athlete. So Murray has made his mark.

—————

I find it interesting that Rafafanitcs have embraced Murray all of the sudden. They were never behind him before. Why now? And now they rally Murrays fans. It will be interesting to see how much love they will give him if he gives Rafa the beatdown like Novak did in with 7 h2h final wins. They loved Novak also, of course ony when he beats Fed. Alterior motives are not hard to see. Yes, go Murray??


sienna Says:

If fed was to choose between olympic or record 8th wimbly.

Well I have never met the guy but I will bet he will take wimbly. Thushe would not swap those.

Duh english is not mine first language either. I see you have difficulties in making a sound argument try to not drink alcoholic beverages when commenting on tennis x


sienna Says:

Duh try to take notes or ask someone nearby to help inanswering or making statements. Parental advice is recommented.
If djoker would have had the better year then Fed wouldnt the latter want to swap his tennis year with Novak ?

No? I think youre right.

Slams both on 1, even steven.
Master Fed 3>novak 2. Do you understand the concept ?
You know 3 is more langer then2? If not maybe someone can teach you.

Olympic, Fed won silver novak got an olympic degree by reaching the best 8.

Rest Fed won this far 2-0

So Fed has gotten more wins throughout the whole possible range of tourney
7 prices are far superior to the 3 novaks got .

How do you explaine yourself about those numbers as to who had thebetter year without crediting a loser for best player. Because that is what you do when novak is the best so far . it is just stupid. tennis praises the winners not runners up. So that is why the ranking system works and Roger as we speak is tje#1and best player of the world.


Huh Says:

First of all categorically speakin olympic wins, as great as they’re, would not compare with slam wins!

slam>>>olympic gold… end of story

Secondly, it’d not have mattered what muzza did unless he has got that elusive slam, n it will not matter in the end for fed who won what so long as he has that slam lead to keep him ahead of the rest of the pack of his era(and if he’s able to win few more slams, then possibly ahead of the rest for all times to come!)! and fed, even though had so many slams, could never imo have swapped a wimbledon for an olympic coz as we already know if he just had a olymic gold for this year, that’d be more of a consolation than real satisfaction of winning a wimby! and with nadal still breathin down his neck in the slam winnin spree, it’s unlikely that a player like fed would ever like to swap a slam win with anything else for the rest of his life, coz it’s surely fed who knows the best, that with the slam record in his favour, there’d never be a questioned raised by any true fan or sensible person as to his GOAT status!
And fed knows it better than rest of us!

Thirdly, with reference to Agassi’s opinion, it’s just an opinion which he has every right to make, but that doesn’t overcome facts! Agassi in fact may have made that opinion merely to diss Sampras(with whom he obviously didn’t have any warm relation ever) for Sampras havin not won a Olympic medal(now this of course is my opinion n speculation which may be right or wrong). But in a strict sense, if time is turned back n agassi is granted just that Olympic gold with him being stripped of all his slams, then he would realize what he’s takin about! And so far as lendl tellin murray about Olympic being so much important, it may be coz obviously lenndl is an intelligent person who would find whatever way he can to encourage murray n lift his spirits and that may include instead of further embarassin murray for his inability to win slam(in the form of wimby 2012) before he went to face fed in the Olympic final, actually cheer up murray by makin him believe that even if he’s able to win Olympic gold, he would’ve done something huge that may give him hope in future for winning a slam finally, and at the stage which lendl said so to muzza, muzza indeed needed some warm n consoling words of his revered coach to fire him up, and from,lendl’s perspective, it’d do him no disfavor if muzza inspired n takin heart from his comfortin words actually wins Olympic instead of losin it to fed n become even more demoralized! It’s like in our life, even if we fail to achieve something big, our near n dear encourage us to not get disheartened n instead fix our sight at our ultimate goal by startin from the small achievements first before we finally arrive at that great achievement for which we craved all life! This pretty much seems the cause behind lendl ignitin in murray the fire to win Olympics by makin muzza believ that even if he wins muzza, he’d done almost as great a thing as winning a slam! That was most probably to take pressure of murray that lendl said so! So credit to him!


Huh Says:

i’m truly amazed n excited at some of the jokers puttin up a circus here on tennis-x by first rationalisin federer loss to murray in olympics by sayin that fed either really/probably wasn’t puttin all his effort n energy into winnin olympics keepin his gaze fixed on USO win! And when fed won the cincinnati, the same idiots jumped upon n down on other’s throats sayin that the federer freight train was gonna run non-stop this time till it halts at the winnin podium in USO, lol! So that was a proclamation of federer victory at USO that we saw, lol! but now that fed couldn’t win USO, some’re backtrackin from their ludicruous n idiotic predictions by puttin up another lame excuse to cover their previous lame prediction n stupid speculation by statin that fed suffered at USO coz he obviously put up huge amount of his physical/emotional energy into winnin olympics, LOL ;)

the jokers just keep on goin round n round n round with rotten eggs n tomatoes on theirfaces, lol! it’s easy to criticise other posters by buttin in in case their predictions go wrong by sayin ”i told ya so!”, but it’s real tough to stand up when your own predictions go wrong n rationalizations prove BS! The end result is endin up with rotten eggs on face n havin a plate of hot roasted crow for lunch with salt (n pepper optional, lol) that is the traditional tennis-x dish served to the people endin up in such unenviable condition, LOL! ;)


Rahul Says:

Huh your taking this way too seriously. Fans make predictions all the time wishing their player wins. How is it any different from non-Fed fans predicting Roger would never win slam 17? When he did win didnt the excuse become “because it was indoor”. This stuff happens all the time and although it can get annoying at times arguing the smallest details, pretending we have a better understanding than the next guy, its part of the fun…


grendel Says:

@Huh 2.07

What you say about the confidence Murray got from his gold, and how that impacted for the US Open makes perfect sense. What’s more, Nadal agrees with you!
:
“Murray’s victory against Federer at Wimbledon to win the Olympic gold had given him the extra confidence to see off Djokovic in New York, Nadal added.

“What has changed is his mentality,” he said.

“His game has not changed practically at all but winning the Olympic Games helped him a lot with the victory in New York.

“Andy is a player with an impressive talent and I always said he would win a slam, not just one he’ll win more than one.”

….


grendel Says:

Polo:”He is very good and will probably win a major or two in the coming years but that is not something I can state with certainty unlike when he was at his peak. ”

Well, that’s right of course about the peak business. But: speaking for myself, anyway, I would not have said he would probably win a major or two in coming years. I wouldn’t now, to be honest. Anything he wins, therefore, for me will be a pleasant surprise. If he doesn’t win any more slams, that’s ok too.


alison Says:

Skeezer i dont know who you were referring to in your post,but i have to say Murray has always been my second favorite player after Rafa,so its not just a sudden thing for me,so if Murray gives Rafa a few beatdowns i wouldnt be happy,however i would find it easier to stomach than when Novak did it lol,i like Novak and Roger but i have no emotional investment in either player,although when i say that i dont mean that disrespectfully,im just happy that Rafa has now beaten Nole 3 times this year and got the monkey off his back,and Andy too has got the monkey off his back and has won his 1st slam(the 1st of many i hope),and no disrespect to Nole or his fans but i hope both Andy and Rafa can now give Nole a few beatdowns,but id be happy if next year is a repeat of this one with both of my favs winning a slam each.


Huh Says:

Rahul

Thanks for your response. And don’t worry, I wasn’t mad with anger but giggling whil typin that post which you’re referring to. Actually it was directed exclusively at two posters who consider everybody except themselves as no-brainers, lol. but funnily enough it was they who ended up getting a taste of their own medicine! Regards… :)


Everyone is entitled to my opinion Says:

Brando and all the other sacntimonious Rafa fans who are preaching on the Rafa thread about my posts, what did you have to say about this one:

subo Says:

“we no for sure roger is very tired not like nadal all messed up for blood doping that is the difference now nadal is gambling where the hell is the atp to stop the fraud nadal”

Nothing, of course. So rather than protect the reputation of the player you say you support, you try to placate Federer’s fans for brownie points.

Absolutely nothing I’ve said about Federer comes anywhere close to this defamation of Nadal’s character.


alison Says:

E.I.E.T.M.O Subo turns up only on the rare occasion to spout the same old rubbish,Rafas doping blah blah blah,never ever adding anything new or constructive to any conversation,H/S as we now know is a Fed fan,but its only taken us a year to actually find that one out,as H/S never ever talks about Roger,or the bloody tennis,but only ever talks about how much H/S hates Rafa,personally ive never seen the point,H/S is not worth worrying about full of hot air IMO.


grendel Says:

Rahul says:”although it can get annoying at times arguing the smallest details, pretending we have a better understanding than the next guy, its part of the fun…”

Absolutely. Personally I post a lot – when I’m around – not because I know anything about tennis,I don’t, but because I find that there are words swirling around in my stomach which will give me severe indigestion if I don’t immediately disgorge them. Tennis, after all, whilst a game of skill, is conducted by people – an odd bunch.


Huh Says:

thanks for your post grendel!

and i’m goin to b flattered with rafa agreein with me only if he gives me few of his bucks, lol ;)


Sienna Says:

So it is agreed a player who untill oktober only has won 3 tournements can never be called the best player of the year till date.

I am glad we are in agreement on this site. Thans a lot. We can now put this thread to rest and begin on “the Nadal doesnot want to play hardcourts anymore, because he doesnot have a chance to win those tourney anymore”thread…….


Kim Says:

I remember being gloomy when Federer lost that Godforsaken 2008 wimbledon final… I also remember crying with him when he won his maiden french open..RFed you are such an idol for me. Keep going.


Huh Says:

the people who drink alcohol includ all the great nobel winnin scientists n philosophers, so havin alcohol doesn’t mean writin crap, lol ;)


Huh Says:

nanana

nole 2 MS wins + 3 MS Finals= 3680 point

fed with 3 MS wins + 1 MS semi<3500 points

now no more nanana, only yeah yeah yeah that nole’s better in MS

so better in MS n better in GS means Nole’s the best player in 2012 till date, lol ;)


Huh Says:

FOR NANANA:

THIS IS GOIN TO PROV THAT NOLE UNDOUBTEDLY HAS BEEN BETTER THAN FED IN 2012 SO FAR N IS GOIN TO SEAL ALL THE DISCUSSION ON THIS MATETR UNTIL FED OVER TAKES NOLE I THE POINTS RACE. :D

First of all let’s see at the performance of fed n nole in the tournaments where both played, n find out who did better n in how many!

Nole n fed palyd together at AO, Dubai, IW, MIAMI, ROME, MADRID, FO, WIM, OLYMPICS, CINCINNATI & USO!

Out of that Nole won AO, MIAMI & did better in ROME, FO & USO(so 5 tournaments out of which 3 are slams!)

Roger won DUBAI, WIM, IW, MAD & did better in Olympics n Cincinnati(so 6 more tournaments out of which only one was GS)

Secondly, we also know that Nole won Montreal n reached MC final where fed was no where to be even seen!

So that makes Nole a better performer in 7 big tournaments out of which 3 are GS(AO, O n USO) n 4 are MS(MIAMI, ROME, MC n MONTREAL)((so all mighty important)!

But Fed did better only in 1 slam(WIM) n 3 MS(IW, MAD n CINCY) n Olympics n a 500 points Dubai(which’s less than even WTF or MS points wise)!

As MC & Olympics r awarded equal points they cancel out each other(especially as nole reached final in MC n fed reached final in olympics).
So finally looking at the remaining(leavin out MC & Olympics) we see that nole did better in 3 GS n 3 MS whereas fed did only better in I GS n I 3 MS!

Thirdly, it’s worth notin here that in all the tournaments that federer played, nole reached semi or better(barrin just MAD) whereas out of all the tournaments that Nole played, fed didn’t reach semi in USO n didn’t even play MC n MONTREAL(so that’s 3 tournaments where fed laid eggs)!

So that speaks volume of who’s done better!

CONCLUSION:

So TO SUM UP: it is proved that Nole has done better than fed not just numerically(i.e. 7 tournaments like AO, FO, USO, MONTREAL, MIAMI, ROME & MC) compared to fed’s 6(Dubai 500, IW, MAD, WIM, CINCY & OLYMPICS) but also has done better than fed in the tournaments that matter( n not to mention accumulatin more points than fed in 2012 points race!)!

SO PUT ALL THE ARGUMENTS TO REST N ACCEPT THAT SO FAR ‘’NOLE HAS DONE BETTER IN 2012 THAN FED’’! ANY OTHER ARGUMENT AS TO WHO’S BETTER IS MOOT!

Actually you’ve no other option other than to accept the reality. But if you still say nanana, I can only say HAHAHA!!! ;)


Huh Says:

in my previos post i wrote ”But Fed did better only in 1 slam(WIM) n 3 MS(IW, MAD n CINCY) n Olympics n a 500 points Dubai(which’s less than even WTF or MS points wise)!” mistakenly, so read it as:

”But Fed did better only in 1 slam(WIM) n 3 MS(IW, MAD n CINCY) n Olympics(which’s less than even WTF or MS points wise)! n a 500 points Dubai!”

thank ya nanana! ;)


sienna Says:

Duh
Roger did not play mc!!

Your whole thirdgrade scheme was built on fed djoker in samedraw.


Huh Says:

sorry nanana, i didnt kno u r slowly getin blind who cant read that i’ve indicated fed didnt play MC. new specs comin for u then? lol


sienna Says:

Yes but you claimed different in another comment.

How slow you are truly amazing


sienna Says:

Please how many times havent you come back with a comment to restate something in a previous comment.
Every comment you make is incontradiction with itself.

Am sorry but you really should be more carefull with your lack of knowledge periode.


Huh Says:

hey nanana, i’m frankly tired of you mbarassin yourself by pretendin to see things different way while u know what it really is, n similarly bluffin n whinin n writin nothin substantial evr to back it up. u need to suck it up n accept it now!

U pretty much kno what I said about fed playin or not playin at MC. My post categorically differentiated the situation where fed n nole jointly played from where they didn’t! YOU KNOW THAT DEFINITELY! You cannot fool me nor can u lie to yourself in regard to the matter at issue here, i.e. about who’s been the better player between fed n nole so far this year(n u very well know it’s not about how slow m I nor I it about how still u r!)! u can only bluffabout what I posted pretendin as if u don’t know what I mean, but I’m never gonna buy your tricks. Accept your defeat regard this issue or continu bluffin n evading the main issue further, but it won’t change the fact that you’re loser on both counts here, n u lost to me finally in this matter! Not even your angels’ve anything left to disprove my assertion that nole’s better than fed upto now for 2012. i know that even thou u would never accept defeat gracefully, but you’re defeated. My posts sealed the deal n I hav d last laugh. :D


sienna Says:

You thermaking work of novak gets being better then roger in tourneys they both entered only to find out roger won more.

So from that point you started to
embarres yourself even more with trying to get mc in the mix.
Roger has won more bigger prices then novak which makes him the best player untill now.


sienna Says:

So try to get a grip and get what really is important for roger and novak which is winning prices..

How can 3 prices beat 7 prices?

Explain!


Huh Says:

Lolz at nanana

She’s again bluffin, lol

Nanana, if ‘’who’s the better playr upto this point argument wasn’t important to u, why u persited with your claim about ‘’federer being better than nole upto this point’’ with me at the first place?? But u know, I get it better than u would ever realize that as I disproved your assertion, u r bitter n again bluffin n even surmising me to get a grip, lol

So u r without doubt a multifaceted talented here… i.e. a drama queen n bluffmistress both rolled into one!

And your prize for these remarkable abilitie is that the generous Huh Is sending you… see link below, lol

http://www.motifake.com/sour-gras-sour-grapes-demotivational-posters-122987.html


jamie Says:

Bullocks.

Top story: It's A Boy! Novak Djokovic Is Now A Father!
  • Recent Comments
Rankings
ATP - Oct 20 WTA - Oct 20
1 Novak Djokovic1 Serena Williams
2 Roger Federer2 Maria Sharapova
3 Rafael Nadal3 Simona Halep
4 Stan Wawrinka4 Petra Kvitova
5 David Ferrer5 Na Li
6 Tomas Berdych6 Agnieszka Radwanska
7 Kei Nishikori7 Eugenie Bouchard
8 Marin Cilic8 Ana Ivanovic
9 Milos Raonic9 Caroline Wozniacki
10 Andy Murray10 Angelique Kerber
More: Tennis T-Shirts | Tennis Shop | Live Tennis Scores | Headlines

Copyright © 2003-2014 Tennis-X.com. All rights reserved.
This website is an independently operated source of news and information and is not affiliated with any professional organizations.