Agree with sean re YE no.1- nole is the one i imagine will end up with that honour.

Unfortunately for fed, i think psychologically he might not- and its only a guess- be there fully due to the concerning death threat. It would be tough on anyone to focus with such a thing on their mind.

Add in the match sharpness of nole and andy, i expect a nolandy final as a result.

Right now i’m not too sure on who would win that one- their matches (except on clay) are pretty much 50/50 wherever they meet.

October 6th, 2012 at 11:43 am

I think we will see a final or two between Fed and Djoker. The difference between winning and lossing is maybe enough to tip it Rogers’way.

And maybe they play semi at WTF so Rogers is not out of it even if Novak beats Tsonga. Which he should for his momentum.
Andys loss against Milos showed he is not that in the race as the others.

October 6th, 2012 at 11:50 am

i love roger federer i expect roger big winner is number 1 in the world is the best in the moment.

October 6th, 2012 at 12:22 pm

Andys loss against Milos showed he is not that in the race as the others”

Sienna, he was tired. ;-)

October 6th, 2012 at 12:24 pm

Murray tired? So is everyone and he can’t rest on his USO win and revert to his childish ways on court. He’s in with the big boys now and fair game for every up and comer.

October 6th, 2012 at 12:44 pm

My prediction is that there will be a no show from Fed in Shanghai – too much on his mind – and who can blame him. Nole will gallop to the finish line and end the year as No. 1.

October 6th, 2012 at 1:29 pm

I saw a little of Djokovic this morning. I am not sure if this is the best Djokovic there was in the season. I think if he wants to beat Fed he needs to be at his maximum.

We will see a rejuvanated Fed and he will try to switch momentum by winning this Shanghai masters.
He will be looking for a mac deficit with Novak <500 points but aso <900 – 1100 points could easiley be covered by taking Novak in semi at WTF.

It is not over and Fed is in his zone.

October 6th, 2012 at 1:39 pm

Fish gills or shark gills, just keep quiet

October 6th, 2012 at 1:45 pm

“And i believe if novak sweeps both Beijing and Shanghai he’ll return to No. 1 in the 52 week rankings”. Wrong.Even if he wins both he wont become the number 1 unless fed is knocked out before the quarters.in all likelihood nole will get the YE#1 but as a Federer fan id be satisfied with 300 weeks(which he’ll achieve by reaching the quarters).And being the king indoors he should dominate the season and go past McEnroe in career titles!

October 6th, 2012 at 1:56 pm

Roger should reach the semi-final if he can set the horrible distractions aside. Andy has a tougher road but he has won twice here. He should also reach the semi-final and beat Roger. The presence of both in the same half makes it a tough draw for both of them. The Berdych-Tsonga section is a minefield and the player emerging out of that section will likely be spent. Novak should reach the final without any problem considering his brilliant form and beat Andy easily if Andy has a long semi- final match against Roger. I think Novak will leave Asia with a lead of over 2000 points in the race and that would virtually seal the year-end no.1.

October 6th, 2012 at 2:10 pm

@ Arun

Roger’s indoor season comprises Basel, Paris and London which will be played in consecutive weeks this year. His past indoor record will not ensure domination again. The tight scheduling alone will ensure that apart from the good form of Novak in particular.

October 6th, 2012 at 2:19 pm

Challenge.atpworldtour.com join group tennis x fans and get in on the shang hai bracket. For those of you who are behind this is a great opportunity to pick up points and often some of the big hitters forget to do a bracket!

October 6th, 2012 at 5:35 pm

I’m in the Shanghai bracket! Hi tennis people :D

October 6th, 2012 at 7:28 pm

Hi conty! Nice to… see you?

October 6th, 2012 at 10:21 pm

@rogerrafa which is precisely why i think he should skip paris bercy.YE#1 is pretty much out of reach anyway.You are right when you say past indoor record dosent ensure domination but IMO murrays the only one who can stop him.Lets see what happens.

October 6th, 2012 at 10:36 pm

Nole will finish #1 this year and totally deserved.

October 6th, 2012 at 10:50 pm

I think the Asian swing is becoming crucial for the No.1 sweep stakes. Roger having not played at Shanghai last year starts with an advantage and anything he does there, even a semi will be a bonus. But he has to win Shanghai to have a cushion since last year his performance was phenomenal in indoors. As regards Novak, a win here would surely take him closer to Roger and if he manages to win the World Series then it is inevitable that he will become No.1. In a nutshell, the race is getting closer as the year progresses.

October 7th, 2012 at 12:15 am

As regards Novak, a win here would surely take him closer to Roger and if he manages to win the World Series then it is inevitable that he will become No.1. In a nutshell, the race is getting closer as the year progresses.
—
Why would anyone call the well named WTF a World Series is beyond me. Doesn’t World Series=American states only?

October 7th, 2012 at 12:50 am

My bracket challenge semi and final result is the same as Sean’s …oops…sorry Nole fans, double jinxed….;)
Nice 2 c u conty. *waves* :)

October 7th, 2012 at 1:51 am

jamie Says:
Nole will finish #1 this year and totally deserved.

October 6th, 2012 at 10:50 pm

IS that so? What of Fed wins Shanghai and WTF and Novak does not take paris.

Then Novak could be yearend #1 because he reached the most semi or lost the most finals?

How can a player be the best if that is the case? Especially when there is another player with 9 prices almost 3 times the amount of Novak.

I would like to make the case that Fed wil be the best player of the year when that scenario runs out. And I might add it is most likely that Fed will win atleast 2/3 further tournements.

Tennis glory is never for the one who mediates the best results but for the one who reaches the best results.

October 7th, 2012 at 3:47 am

Nishikori wins in Tokyo, and not only that – he delivers a third set bagel!
Brilliant performance. He was doing all the things Murray should have done against Raonic, but couldn’t.

October 7th, 2012 at 4:23 am

Compared to Djokovic, Federer got the worse draw. In Shanghai, as in the US Open, Federer gets Murray in his half. If the likely Federer-Murray semifinal is a long exhausting match, it gives Djokovic an advantage in the final. Federer’s quarter looks easy at first glance but the Chinese fans will be cheering wildly for Ze Zhang, Wawrinka played well in Tokyo, and a hot Cilic/Monaco could be a tougher match than expected. Remember that, unlike Djokovic and Murray, Federer has no warm-up match practice in Beijing/Tokyo.

Djokovic gets the puffball quarter (featuring his buddy Tipsarevic or Almagro in the quarterfinals) and in the semifinals Novak gets Berdych, Tsonga, the exhausted Raonic or the exhausted Nishikori. It helps Federer/Murray if the Beijing final (Tsonga-Djokovic) is a long exhausting, physical match.

Currently Federer has a 1,335 point lead over Djokovic in the official rolling 52-week ATP world rankings. Thus, as long as Federer reaches the Shanghai quarterfinal (180 points), Djokovic cannot take the World No.1 even if he wins Beijing and Shanghai. He’ll have to wait until Paris (unless he goes to Valencia/Basel as a wild card).

However, this is my prediction: Currently, Djokovic has a 990-year to date point lead over Federer (based on the race to London). if after Shanghai Djokovic has less than a 1,100 year-to-date points lead over Federer, then Roger (if he remains healthy) probably finishes the year end No.1 by WTF. If Djokovic has more than a 1,600 ytd point lead over Federer after Shanghai, then Djokovic probably finishes the year-end No.1. If the gap after Shanghai is 1,100 to 1,600, it depends on their performance and draws in the remaining three events. Don’t forget that Djokovic has the option to play Valencia/Basel 500 as a wild card if he feels desperate for extra points.

*****

Federer, speaking at a Sunday press conference with black-suited security personnel looking on, said the build-up to the Shanghai Masters had been different from usual. “Obviously maybe it’s a little bit of a distraction, there’s no doubt about it. But you have to be aware of what’s happening around you,” he said.

But in typical fashion, Federer downplayed the serial death threats – instead of sensationalizing the publicity to exploit public sympathy.

Federer said he first became aware of the death threats about 10 days ago, before it hit the headlines. “So then obviously it came out in the press. That’s when things changed. It became much more public, which I’m a bit disappointed about, that it did come out in the press,” he said.

Federer’s wife and twin daughters have not travelled to China. Federer claimed that decision had nothing to do with the threats, adding: “It was a last-minute decision for me to come here in the first place.” However, this is probably a white lie to downplay the impact of the death threats. That’s because everyday from September 23 to to 26 (just before the first death threats started on September 25), the Chinese press reported that Federer had reserved hotel rooms for the largest entourage he had ever brought to Shanghai (Federer played in Shanghai in five previous years). Last week I posted those Chinese news links that had reported this information for four consecutive days. After September 26, the Chinese press suddenly stopped reporting anything on Federer as part of a news blackout over the death threats.
http://tinyurl.com/9g4zfzl

Federer said had felt safe in China and praised the authorities. Sure he does, as you can see from pictures of Federer practicing with buddy Jarkko Nieminen, his life is in a bubble:

http://tinyurl.com/9lw3xkg

http://tinyurl.com/9btu4oq

http://tinyurl.com/9dzgtzu

http://tinyurl.com/8pmkeue

http://tinyurl.com/8lq2m9d

October 7th, 2012 at 5:34 am

Who do you guys think the ATP player of the Year will go to?Each of the big 4 have a good case.

October 7th, 2012 at 6:18 am

Nole leads by 1505 points at the race, but he doesn’t play Basel this year. So, he has to win at least one MS and to have good results at the other and at the YEC to finish first. The race is still wide open.

October 7th, 2012 at 6:29 am

Whoever of the big 4 wins the year end championship should be the ATP player of the year. That leaves Nadal out.

October 7th, 2012 at 6:42 am

Federer can win Shanghai, Basel, Paris and the WTF and still finish #2. So I guess this Shanghai tournament will decide it. If Federer wins the title, he has a shot at #1. If Nole wins the title, the year end #1 is pretty much his. Hopefully Federer gets at least the 300 weeks at #1. And it would be even sweeter if he gets the Year End #1. Possible still, mathematically ;)

October 7th, 2012 at 6:47 am

^^^^he’s been out since June, no?

#tongueincheek

October 7th, 2012 at 6:58 am

Because he lost to #100 in the world. Bumping into that guy during a changeover because he was getting schooled.
After tourney he choose not to participate on the faster part of the year. He choose not to play and therefor he never can become the best player of the year because best player of the year must have a big hearth.

October 7th, 2012 at 7:11 am

^^ Some people are just not in touch!! #inthedark

October 7th, 2012 at 7:33 am

Don’t worry @sienna, your beau will be back smouldering on court soon!!

October 7th, 2012 at 9:29 am

As I had mentioned earlier, If Federer wins Shanghai, given that he is playing Basel while Djokovic is not, Federer would still have a better chance of finishing No 1 than Djokovic, also given the fact that the surface favors him the rest of the year.

If Djokovic wins Shanghai, he pretty much seals the No. 1 ranking.

If neither win it – then Djokovic has a better chance of ending No. 1.

So Federer HAS to win Shanghai to be in good position. Then if he wins Basel, Djokovic would, at best, only be about 400 points ahead of Federer in the race – something Federer can easily make up in Paris and London.

Lets see… Murray again in Fed’s draw.

If Federer reaches the QF of Shanghai, he is guaranteed to remain No. 1 at least till after Basel – thus crossing 300 weeks at No. 1. Looks pretty likely.

October 7th, 2012 at 9:56 am

@Polo i did a check.The last time there were 4 different slam winners(2003) they gave the player of the year to roddick probably because he had gotten the YE#1.If that criterion is used this time as well then Nole will most probably get it.Federer has also said that he hopes to finish on top but also said it wasnt an overriding goal.Im guessing he will give it one last shot and try to win this trophy and stay alive.If he dosent win it he’ll probably skip Paris and focus on winning a 7th WTF title.

October 7th, 2012 at 10:16 am

Polo yeah your most probably quite right Rafa has zero chance at the WTFs,having said that lifes full of surprises,so im sure his fans will keep the faith in him,if its all right by you.

October 7th, 2012 at 11:06 am

Congrats to Nishikori,im sorry i missed the match as it sounds like it was a cracker,as regards to the Nole/JWT the result of the match was pretty much what i expected,a tight first set which one has to think Joe needed to win to stand a chance,Nole took it and Joe faded in the second set no surprises really,Joe was unlucky at RG and couldnt convert those match points,and that was on clay,and if you cant beat Nole on clay,youve got zero chance on a HC,as hes virtually unbeatable on a HC,the only players that have a chance against him would be Roger and Andy ATM,anyway congrats to Nole and his fans Jane,Nina,Wogboy,Mat4,Courbon etc etc,another great week for Novak.

October 7th, 2012 at 11:26 am

Alison. Since when do Rafa fans need Polo’s approval to “keep the faith in him”????? Your comment is just unreal!!

October 7th, 2012 at 12:01 pm

Andres
if novak is losing all those finalsthen Fed will gaan I believe 1500 points so. but djoker is not playing basel so winning those tournements will do nicely.

October 7th, 2012 at 1:00 pm

Giles, this comment of alison’s – “if its all right by you.” – is clearly a piece of gentle sarcasm.

I think Nishikori’s defeat of Berdych was not given the credit it deserved. Because of that defeat, he should have been seen to have a realistic shot against Raonic. There’s no doubt he’ll get into the top 10. After Nishikori had taken a set off Nadal at Queens 3 (?) years ago, Rafa predicted top 5 for him. Hope so – but, biology is against him. If he plays as well as Djokovic, say, -and I am convinced he can – he will still lose (other things being equal), because he will be outpowered. Ergo, to beat a Djokovic, he has to play BETTER than him by some margin. And that’s a tall order.

Azarenka beat Sharapova 6-3, 6-1, and the first set should have been 6-1. Azarenka actually won the set at 6-1, but her winning ball was called out. Hawkeye showed it to be in. Reprieved, the Sharp won the next two games.

Apparently, the Sharp was in consummate form in her semi against Kerber. She was unable to reproduce that form today, which was a pity. A Sharp right at the top of her form could possibly beat Azarenka and we’d certainly have a real match. You’d always bet on Azarenka, though, because she is so incredibly steady. Sharapova has the more inspirational play – she can do stuff which Azarenka cannot do – but against someone with the rock solid defence of Azarenka, she has to be more or less in the zone throughout the match. That can only happen very occasionally, so though you can’t rule out Sharapova beating Azarenka again, I can’t see it happening often.

Just before the players parted at the end of the awards ceremony, there was an amusing display of character. Azarenka was smiling in an absolutely relaxed way. She smiled like a happy woman. Sharapova was also smiling. She did fairly convincing things with her mouth, displaying a good set of teeth and looking quite pretty in a way, especially as she gave her head a flirtatious little tilt. However, the smile never reached the eyes. Her face was cold, and as she turned briefly to acknowledge Azarenka (preparatory to leaving the court), she switched the whole mechanism off. Fascinating to watch.

Conty, I saw your post on another thread. You have returned. I, however, am finally off for a while – having promised to do so for some time, but how difficult it is! – so I touch fingers with you, as you reappear and I disappear….. All the best! Tennislover recently put up a thread of two years ago, and there were lots of posts by you – full of character and quite different to anyone elses’.

October 7th, 2012 at 1:08 pm

Hi, Grendel. Nice you’re here, if only for a few posts.

October 7th, 2012 at 1:58 pm

The best player of the year usually receives three different awards: ATP World Tour No.1 (fka ATP World Tour Champion), ATP Player Of The Year (POTY), and ITF World Champion. These examples with clips will clarify the three awards. [However, the ATP sometimes confused the ATP World Tour No.1 with the ATP Player Of The Year in its information (website, media guide, etc).]

- Roger Federer was crowned 2009 ATP World Tour Champion (first clip). This award is automatically given to the player who finishes year end No.1 and is presented during the World Tour Finals at season’s end. I’m not sure when this award began but the ATP year-end No.1 has existed since 1973. Since 2010 this award has been renamed ATP World Tour No.1 and Nadal got a huge urn trophy instead of the cheapo thing that Roger got (see second clip)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cz6Vner46K8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Yhbex_hE0M

- Federer got the 2009 ATP Player Of The Year award, handed out at 2010 Indian Wells. The POTY award has existed since 1975. I think the ATP players vote on the POTY. 32 of the 37 POTY awards have gone to the player who (a) won the most slams and (b) was the year end No.1. Where there is a tie in slams won, the year-end No.1 has usually been the tie-breaker. However in five years (1975, 1977, 1978, 1982, 1989) where the No. 1 player won less slams than a lower-ranked top player, the ATP gave the POTY to the No. 2 or 3 player who won more slams.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rFChA-gIXns

- Federer also got the 2009 ITF World Champion award, handed out at a dinner during French Open. Since this award started in 1978, the ITF World Champion and the ATP Player Of The Year have been the same except in only one year (1990)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WCVT9Nhs8IE

*****

So those are the differences between the three awards.

Now the focus is the ATP Player of The Year award (POTY). Specifically, who is likely to get the POTY under this year’s circumstances where the four slams were split among four different players?

In 37 years, there were 12 years where the four slams were shared by four different players: 1975, 1976, 1983*, 1985, 1990, 1991**, 1996, 1998, 2000*, 2001, 2002, 2003*. Since after 1976, the POTY has been awarded to the player who (a) was a one-slam champion and (b) also held the year-end No.1 ranking. This was the case even when one or more lower-ranked one slam champion had reached a second slam final but the POTY reached no other slam final (other than the one slam won). If you want to know more details about each of these 12 years, it is available at the end of this post

These simple criteria make sense since we want the POTY to be ranked No.1 (symbolizing overall success in and dominance of the world tour) as well as hold the biggest titles (grand slams are the gold symbols of dominance).

The International Tennis Federation is the body that sanctions the four Grand Slams. The ITF concurs with choices for the ATP POTY because the ITF awards the ITF World Champion to the same players. Since the ITF award began in 1978, the same player has been the ITF World Champion and the ATP Player OF The Year (the ATP POTY started in 1975). The ITF’s only exception was in 1990: the ITF gave the award to the lower-ranked player who had reached less grand slam finals! The ITF gave the 1990 ITF World Champion to Ivan Lendl (Year-End No. 3, Australian champion, no other slam finals) instead of the ATP Player Of The Year Stefan Edberg (Year End No.1, Wimbledon champ, Australian finalist). The ITF’s irrational decision was condemned as being motivated to punish Edberg for criticizing the ITF’s Grand Slam Cup.

The ATP ranking is the gold standard for determining the best player. It’s a sound, objective and simple system that’s been around for many years, has undergone refinements and most importantly – its principles and weights are accepted by most players (they are the ones most affected by the rankings system). The few people who complain about the ATP ranking system tend to be obsessed with the four grand slams because it’s easier to focus on just four tournaments and they are relatively ignorant of tennis history before the late 1990s. But even the ITF is not obsessed with how many slam finals or semifinals, etc have been reached by players. It’s a reality of sports life that athletes are recognized for winning titles – not for coming in second or third best (e.g., losing finalist or losing semifinalist).

Today’s ranking system is heavily weighted towards the grand slams: in ranking points, a Masters 1000 is valued at only 50% of a Grand Slam, while sub-masters events are 12.5% (ATP 250) to 25% (ATP 500) of a slam. Thus the grand slams are already heavily reflected in the player’s rankings. This does away with the need to argue the minutia of each player’s grand slam record. But, in the past, there were times when slams were given less weight. E.g., in 1994-1995, a masters tournament such as Rome was worth as much as about 64% of a grand slam. Sub-masters tournaments were worth much more: Tokyo was worth 49% and Sydney/Osaka 32% of the Australian Open. The Australian Open was worth 90% of Wimbledon. See Sampras’s 1994 and Thomas Muster’s 1995 records:
http://tinyurl.com/9uatkob
http://tinyurl.com/8hcvlft

*****

Here are the details on the 12 years where the four grand slams were shared by four different players: 1975, 1976, 1983*, 1985, 1990, 1991**, 1996, 1998, 2000*, 2001, 2002, 2003*.

- In 1983, POTY was No.1 John McEnroe, who won one slam (Wimbledon champion) and two YEC (Masters Grand Prix, WCT Finals). No.4 Mats Wilander won one slam (Australian Open champion) and reached a second slam final (French Open finalist).

- In 1991, POTY was No. 1 Stefan Edberg, who won one slam (US Open champion). No. 2 Jim Courier won one slam (French Open champion) and reached a second slam final (US Open finalist). As well, No. 3 Boris Becker won one slam (Australian Open champion) and reached a second slam final (Wimbledon finalist).

- In 2000, POTY was No. 1 Gustavo Kuerten who won one slam (French Open champion) and won YEC (Tennis Masters Cup). No. 3 Pete Sampras won one slam (Wimbledon champion) and reached a second slam final (US Open finalist).

- In 2003, POTY was No. 1 Andy Roddick, who won one slam (US Open champion). No. 3 Juan Carlos Ferrero won one slam (French Open champion) and reached a second slam final (US Open finalist).

The only exceptions/inconsistencies when the higher-ranked slam champion did not win were in the first two years (1975, 1976). But thereafter, in the past 35 years, the ATP has been consistent with respect to similar circumstances we have this year.

- In 1975, POTY was No. 4 Arthur Ashe with one slam (Wimbledon champion). Ashe was awarded POTY over No. 3 Borg with one slam (French Open champion) as well as over No. 1 Connors with three slam finals (AO, W, USO finalists).

- In 1976, No. 2 Bjorn Borg with one slam (Wimbledon champion) and one slam final (US Open finalist) was awarded POTY over No. 1 Connors with one slam (USO champion). [At the time Connors was disliked by the ATP and several top players -- Connors was never awarded POTY when he held year-end No.1 from 1974 to 1978].

In those 12 years where four players shared the four slams, the only other discernable pattern was that the POTY was Wimbledon champion in 6 (50%) of those 12 years. The US Open champion won 5 times. The French Open champion won once. The Australian Open champion never ever won POTY in those 12 years.

October 7th, 2012 at 3:12 pm

Grendel obviously not so gentel lol, ok probably not his most sucessfull part of the season granted,i just get annoyed sometimes when he gets written off before a tourneys even started,after all never has does not always mean never will,Rafa and his fans have more faith in him than that,my two cents.

October 7th, 2012 at 3:17 pm

“And that’s a tall order.” Especially since he’s not, as tennis players go, which I assume was linked to your point about power.

In any case, yes; congrats to Kei – a lovely win for him, and well earned indeed!

alison, thanks.

October 7th, 2012 at 3:29 pm

Jane your welcome.

October 7th, 2012 at 3:34 pm

aluson,

Thanks

October 7th, 2012 at 4:43 pm

“alison”

October 7th, 2012 at 5:03 pm

@Dave very informative post

October 8th, 2012 at 6:25 am

Arun, you make a good point. Fed will probably (and should) skip Paris if he loses more ground to Djokovic at Shanghai (i.e., Djokovic does better than him at Shanghai). Since in that case, Djokovic would have a 1000+ points lead over Federer, even if Fed wins Basel, which means there is very little chance of Fed ending the year No. 1. A seventh YEC would be a better and a more achievable goal for the old man.

Though I really hope Fed wins Shanghai, because that’s the only way this race really gets stirred up.

Anyone notices the YEC is earlier in the year this time? Players have a longer off season, which is good. I still think they ought to reduce the tournaments a bit:

- Shanghai masters in January, one week before the AUS open (similar time zone, almost).

- scrap Miami and IW (never gonno happen though!) – doesn’t make sense to have those tournaments just before the clay season.

- Have two clay masters in March/April (in Europe), followed by an earlier French open (early May).

- Have a grass court masters (in Europe) followed by Wimbledon, perhaps a week or two earlier.

- After a month’s break, have THREE hard courts masters in North America – Toronto, Cincinnati, MIami, followed by the US Open.

- Do the Paris masters and then YEC after a week’s break.

- Have a clear two month off season.

This way, there are 8 masters, each masters builds up to a slam, there is at least one masters on grass. Count only FOUR other tournaments, not FIVE towards rankings. This way, top players can play 17 tournaments (4 slams, 8 masters, 4 500 level, YEC), AT MOST.

Keep slams best of 5. Make YEC best of 5 (come on, its the end of the year, give it some prestige), but keep masters and others best of 3.

However, given the politics of tournaments and their history, its not likely to happen!!! Its just a pipe dream…..

And BTW, make Davis cup every other year – spread it out a bit.

October 8th, 2012 at 11:22 am

Nole better find a way to finish #1 this year because he deserves it the most in 2012 due to his 3 slam finals and because from 2013-2015 Murray will be the player with the best chances at #1 and to win the most slams due to Brit’s alignments which are the best of the top 4 for the next 2-3 years.. When Murray goes up, Nole goes down. The same way that when Nole went up, Nadal went down.

October 8th, 2012 at 11:27 am

“In those 12 years where four players shared the four slams, the only other discernable pattern was that the POTY was Wimbledon champion in 6 (50%) of those 12 years. The US Open champion won 5 times. The French Open champion won once. The Australian Open champion never ever won POTY in those 12 years.”

________________

Yikes…..

October 8th, 2012 at 11:35 am

[...] know I had Roger Federer winning the semifinals, but in my original draw I, along with many others I’m sure, had Andy Murray reaching the finals against Novak [...]

October 13th, 2012 at 3:44 pm