Federer, Nadal Can Overtake Djokovic For The No. 1 Ranking At Wimbledon

wow.i know i would sound stupid but I hope Federer reads this so that he’ll be even more motivated!

Go Rog!!!

June 18th, 2012 at 12:45 pm

Well, for the record: :)

“Djokovic, who has won three of the last four major tournaments and finished second in the other — the recent French Open — has been on top of the rankings for 52 weeks. That ties Andre Agassi for the 12th longest string of consecutive weeks at No. 1, with John McEnroe (53) in 11th, Rafael Nadal (56) 10th and McEnroe (58) again at ninth.”

Read more: http://www.upi.com/Sports_News/2012/06/18/Djokovic-has-been-No-1-for-a-year/UPI-89841340020685/#ixzz1yAGeRsSs

June 18th, 2012 at 12:54 pm

Djokovic might have won 3 slams and RU in the other, but Federer has won more 250s and RU in the most recent one. So Federer deserves the number 1 ranking more than Djokovic.

June 18th, 2012 at 1:24 pm

Damn Federer…he should have played some ITF’s for extra points to reach No.1 Or they should award more points to indoor titles to boost Fedex.

June 18th, 2012 at 1:39 pm

Allez Fed!

June 18th, 2012 at 1:45 pm

No! rafa has lost 7 times in a row and 3 times in a row to djokovic!

If anyone deserves number it is him!

And dont forget he achieved all this by winning 75% of his titles on a surface that he plays only 5 tournaments a year.

He wanted the atp to take note of how many less tournaments are there on clay, so he has decided he will never win another tournament on another surface. That is why he comes to the final and loses to djokovic. He even lost to andy murray in tokyo last year losing the 3rd set 6-0. he is doing this so other players can benefit by having more tournaments on clay.

June 18th, 2012 at 1:49 pm

Now wait for fleischer and mark and RFF to make some imbecile posts that only raf@tards can make!

June 18th, 2012 at 1:49 pm

oh FliE#sher

RFF loves you so much. thanks for posting that fliesher.

RFF wishes he was smart enough to post that. oh yes he does!

June 18th, 2012 at 1:51 pm

jane, Djokovic actually became No. 1 on July 4, 2011. So UPI is jumping the gun by two weeks by stating “Novak Djokovic reached the one-year mark of being the No. 1-ranked player in men’s tennis Monday and will take that ranking to Wimbledon next week.” Djokovic will definitely reach that mark in two weeks time, of course, but UPI portrays it as it it has already happened today.

The consecutive weeks No. 1 top ten list is the second column from left.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATP_World_Tour_records#ATP_Rankings_.28since_1973.29

Only 5 players in ATP history have been ranked World No. 1 every week during a calendar year: Connors, Lendl, Sampras, Lleyton Hewitt and Federer. Roger is the only man to do so for three consecutive years (2005–07)

June 18th, 2012 at 2:57 pm

Nadal for NUMBER ONE!! Go Rafaaaaa!!!

June 18th, 2012 at 3:14 pm

Djokovic just needs to wake up. fix his UE and win Wimbledon. He can keep the no.1.

June 18th, 2012 at 3:39 pm

Since the Arrogant One is GOAT, we should treat him like how airlines treat their elite first class customers. Double ATP points for every tournament won. Halle should make him Winner Emeritus and give him 250 points every year.

Wimbledon should rename the Center Court as Andy Murray-Roger Federer Arena. As a royalty, Mr. Lady Forehand and the Arrogant One will receive life long No.1 and No.5 seeding AND 2000 points.

Any more ways to make the Arrogant One No.1, since we know the easiest way – winning big titles, is not possible.

June 18th, 2012 at 4:11 pm

I asked the world’s best airline for the past 25 years — Singapore Airlines — about what ‘Humble Rafa’ said about airlines treating their elite first class customers. They said ‘Humble Rafa’ obviously has not flown first class on any airline.
http://www.singaporeair.com/en_UK/about-us/sia-history/sia-awards/

June 18th, 2012 at 4:23 pm

Fleischer: “Djokovic might have won 3 slams and RU in the other, but Federer has won more 250s and RU in the most recent one. So Federer deserves the number 1 ranking more than Djokovic.”

While RFF may be able to re-appear as Fleischer and other apparitions, it really needs to check its facts.

Roger Federer did not win a single ATP 250 over the past year. Federer has, however, won the most titles and has been the most consistent winner on tour throughout theseason. Roger has the best win-loss record in both absolute and relative terms (most wins, least losses, best winning percentage) of the top players over the past 52 weeks. Djokovic performed poorly in the fourth quarter of 2011, winning only 6 matches, losing 3 and giving a walkover. Too bad that players in their prime like Djokovic and Nadal are unable to handle the stress of winning throughout the season (outside slams) in the way that 30-year old Federer has been able to do… but if Federer wins Wimbledon and/or the US Open to win the No. 1 ranking, he fully deserves it based on his consistency and professionalism.

Top players’ performances for past 52 weeks:
1. Federer: 69-10 (87.3%) won 1 World Tour Finals year-end championship, 3 Masters, 3 ATP 500 titles
2. Djokovic: 65-11 (85.5%), won 3 Slam and 2 Masters titles
3. Nadal: 65-13 (83.3%), won 1 Slam, 2 Masters and 1 ATP 500 titles
4. Murray: 60-14 (81.1%), won 2 Masters, 1 ATP 500 and 2 ATP 250 titles
5. David Ferrer 66-18 (78.6%), won 2 Masters, 1 ATP 500 and 2 ATP 250 titles

ATP link: Current Index is based on player’s performance for past 52 weeks (the differences in winning percentages between my figures and the ATP figures are probably because my calculations are more accurate than the ATP’s :)
http://www.atpworldtour.com/Reliability-Zone/Reliability-Overall-Current-List.aspx

June 18th, 2012 at 4:25 pm

@Dave:

who, since the start of the 2011 season, has done the following:

1- Been ranked no. 1 or no. 2 in the rankings and entered the slams as either seed in these positions?

2- Has won the most slams or reached the finals?

3- Has won the most MS or reached the finals?

4- has the best head to head against the game’s big 4 (novak, rafa, fed and murray)?

now IF fed trumps the others in this regard, then yes he deserves the no.1 and his consistency should be lauded. But IF he doesn’t then people need to take a ‘time out’ with the whole fed is more consistent than others talk since- as fed himself would likely say- it’s all about the big stage and who wins there that is the top dog- and for almost a year its been NOVAK.

I mean IF nadal, djokovic or even murray had federer’s results in the last 16 months and someone claimed that they were the best- they would get laughed out of here since it be pointed out that ‘ how can you be the best when you always come up short when it matters most, i.e. slams?’

June 18th, 2012 at 4:33 pm

Brando
Dave referred to past 52 weeks, which is period of the ATP rankings. What happened in the first six months of 2011 is not relevant.

June 18th, 2012 at 4:58 pm

As much as I agree that Novak has been the near dominant player at the Slam level for the last 18 months, I have to agree with Master Ace: the rankings are computer-based and objective in that regard. It’s true that Federer has not been nearly as successful in his Grand Slam outings since 2010, but the current situation is that Djokovic and Nadal are towing a fairly thin line that demands they repeat their F and W appearances at Wimbledon and the U.S. Open over the summer. One slip up, which could open the way for Federer, and he’s back in the mix at the top.

Of course, if they’re both playing at the level they’ve been playing at, they *should* be able to chug their way back to Championship Sunday, which is the less-concerned point of view.

Both sides have something to take comfort in here. If Federer does re-take #1, it would be hard to say it’s not deserved, though, as it’s very unlikely that he’ll do so without winning a major. If Nadal and Djokovic both crash out of Wimbledon in the first round, that’s another story, but I just don’t see that happening.

June 18th, 2012 at 5:09 pm

IF federer gets the no.1 by winning a major (most likely necessary) then only THE FOOLISH will say he doesn’t deserve it.

BUT IF he gets no.1 by not winning a slam or reaching finals, whilst rafa or novak carry on cleaning then questioning it will only be natural.

either way, its pointless talk imo right now. time will tell.

June 18th, 2012 at 5:37 pm

Brando, I think after sepnding 285 weeks as #1 and having 237 consecutive weeks as #1 I as a fed fan take any week he will be #1 even without einning a Slam (something that cna happen before US Open if Nadal and Djoko slip, specially with Nole defending wimby, montreal and cincy final. If Fed manage to do a Wozniack it will be another houdini stunt of his:)

June 18th, 2012 at 6:13 pm

Brando: It’s interesting you left out the World Tour Finals and most titles. Regardless, we can apply your same 18-month principle to Novak Djokovic: what the hell did he do in 2010 to make him deserving of the No. 1 ranking on July 4, 2011? He barely won Dubai and won Beijing in 2011 — that’s only two ATP 500 titles the entire year in 2010. He barely reached the final of only one other event (after being 2 matchpoints down in the semifinal). Djokovic became No. 1 mostly on the strength of what he did in the first 6 months of 2011.

Tennis history is littered with examples of players who won a bunch of slams then failed to do so thereafter. For example: here are some players who won three or four slams in a calendar year, but failed to win a slam the following year: Jack Crawford (1933-1934), Rod Laver (1969-1970), Jimmy Connors (1974-1975), Mats Wilander (1988-1989). You can’t resurrect past glories to help a player in the current ranking period. What they did in the past deserves respect and makes them a big contender, but it does not contribute to what they do in the current 52-week ranking period.

The official ATP rankings are based on performance in the past 52 weeks. Jimmy Connors remained No. 1 in ATP weekly rankings throughout 1975 and 1976 despite not winning a slam between 1974 US Open and 1976 US Open. Connors is not the only example but you get the picture. During that period Borg won two slams, but simply did not win enough points from other tourneys to take the number one ranking.

The four grand slams contributed almost 50% of Djokovic’s ranking points for 2011. Thus, had he not performed incredibly well outside the slams in the first three quarters of the year, he would not have achieved the other 51% of points needed to make him No. 1. Djokovic and Nadal’s slacking off in the fourth quarter of 2011 are now haunting them. But had they pushed themselves in the fourth quarter 2011, it is conceivable they would have burned out and failed to win the slams they won this year — and they knew it, that’s why they pulled back. Federer, on the other hand, showed up to compete in the fourth quarter despite his age and other commitments. The reason why Federer and Lendl dominated their eras to the extent they did was because they showed up to win in every quarter of the season for several consecutive seasons in a row. That’s something that so far neither Djokovic or Nadal have been able to do or chosen to do. You can’t turn around now and say Federer would not deserve the No. 1 ranking given that deficiency in Djokovic and Nadal’s record — if Djokovic and Nadal can’t be No.1 despite winning slams, it is only natural to question the deficiencies in their record.

No one said Federer is the best as he has not yet re-claimed the No.1 ranking (“I mean IF nadal, djokovic or even murray had federer’s results in the last 16 months and someone claimed that they were the best”).

June 18th, 2012 at 6:36 pm

ATP: “Wimbledon is shaping as a battleground for the World No. 1 ranking, with Novak Djokovic, Rafael Nadal and Roger Federer all in contention to hold top spot after The Championships.

Djokovic, who has held the No. 1 South African Airways ATP Ranking since July 4, 2011 after winning his first Wimbledon title, must reach the final to ensure that he remains ahead of his rivals. Because of his stunning start to the 2011 season, when Djokovic headed into Wimbledon with a 41-1 match record, the Serb has had a mountain of points to defend during the first half of this year. Although he defended his Australian Open and Sony Open Tennis titles, those have been Djokovic’s only triumphs of the season; in 2011 he won seven crowns during the same period.

Federer can retake No. 1 if he wins the Wimbledon title and Djokovic does not advance beyond the semi-finals…

Nadal, who ceded the No. 1 ranking to Djokovic when he lost the Wimbledon final last year, can reclaim top spot if he wins The Championships for a third time and the Serb does not go beyond the quarter-finals.

Federer has vaulted back into contention for No. 1 after a strong finish to last season and an impressive 2012 campaign. Last year Federer lost to Djokovic in the semi-finals of US Open (after holding two match points) and won his last three tournaments of the year: Basel, The ATP World Tour Masters 1000 title in Paris and the Barclays ATP World Tour Finals. In his nine tournaments this year Federer has failed to reach the semi-finals or better only once (Miami) and has won four events: ATP World Tour Masters 1000 titles in Indian Wells and Madrid, and ATP World Tour 500 titles in Rotterdam and Dubai.

The table below shows how many South African Airways ATP Rankings points each player will have after Wimbledon 2012 based on which round he reaches.”(see link for table)
http://www.atpworldtour.com/News/Tennis/2012/06/Features/Federer-In-Contention-For-No1.aspx

June 18th, 2012 at 8:37 pm

I think Nole will be #1 leaving Wimbledon, but the pressures of defending points are a mess. On a side note –

http://tennisabides.com/2012/06/18/tennis-abides-podcast-number-1/ My first Tennis Radio/Audio Comments – I am not super tech savvy so I need to find a better way than just link the podcast, but I may just create a youtube channel as it seems easier imbed even if I am not sure it is a great idea

June 18th, 2012 at 8:42 pm

69 percent of tennis xers voting roger to win wimbledon

June 18th, 2012 at 9:18 pm

Kimberly – i think the reason is because roger has the bigger fan base on tennis-x.

I didn’t vote yet, i would probably vote for roger too. Hoping for the last hurray at 31.

June 18th, 2012 at 9:33 pm

Dave,

That was a great link. All kinda of great scenarios there. Who do you think has the least odds of getting that #1 ranking at Wimby?

“Federer can retake No. 1 if he wins the Wimbledon title and Djokovic does not advance beyond the semi-finals…”

Odds are Fed and Djoker will be in the same side ( what else is new? )…so Fed could beat Djoker in the semis and beat the Beast in the final. Could happen! (errr…right….wishful thinking..).

June 18th, 2012 at 9:41 pm

@ kimberly
Roger has the most fans here, but I wil vote for our guy nadal, I have a feeling he will bite the trophy again,,,,, just for fun,,,,,

June 18th, 2012 at 9:54 pm

“Odds are Fed and Djoker will be in the same side ( what else is new? )” True skeezer! But I don’t know why I have a hunch Nole/Murray and Rafa/Fed will be on the same side?? Rafa has stopped Murray at the QFs once (08) and the semis twice (10, 11). I know it’s a coin flip, etc, but I think the queen is gonna land different this time. Hunch, though, nothing more.

June 18th, 2012 at 9:54 pm

”And dont forget he achieved all this by winning 75% of his titles on a surface that he plays only 5 tournaments a year.”

according to atp rules, you also get points for making qf,sf,finals.
incredible huh?
you’ll find nadal has made quite a lot of those on hard court.
he also made 5 wimbledon finals: more than any other active player besides federer.

it’s almost like he didn’t get to no.1 just by winning on clay.

June 18th, 2012 at 10:12 pm

69% is too low in tennis-x.

June 18th, 2012 at 10:13 pm

roy says “according to atp rules, you also get points for making qf,sf,finals.
incredible huh?”

oh really, why dont you tell that to all these guys who are claiming federer doesnt deserve the number 1? i guess you can only see it when we point out how nadal’s achievements should be viewed, right?

June 18th, 2012 at 10:36 pm

gotta love tennis-x. they had fed winning french open @ 60%

i can tell you two moronic sites if you would rather see raf@tards like rff/fliesher though!

June 18th, 2012 at 10:44 pm

Athony Edwards,

re; rff/fliesher

they came from Star Wars;

“Darth Vader: There is no escape. Don’t make me destroy you.
[pauses]
Darth Vader: Luke, you do not yet realize your importance. You have only begun to discover your power. Join me, and I will complete your training. With our combined strength, we can end this destructive conflict and bring order to the galaxy.
Luke: I’ll never join you!
Darth Vader: If you only knew the power of the Dark Side. Obi-Wan never told you what happened to your father.
Luke: He told me enough! He told me *you* killed him!
Darth Vader: No. *I* am your father.
Luke: No. No. That’s not true. That’s impossible!
Darth Vader: Search your feelings, you *know* it to be true!
Luke: [anguished] No! No!

June 18th, 2012 at 10:53 pm

Fleischer Says:

Djokovic might have won 3 slams and RU in the other, but Federer has won more 250s and RU in the most recent one. So Federer deserves the number 1 ranking more than Djokovic.

—

Federer, the new Wozniacki?

June 18th, 2012 at 11:26 pm

The more I think about it..the more it makes sense.

“The Staff” make up pro-Arrogant One headlines and articles to increase traffic. I mean, anyone with half a brain (that excludes 75% of those reading this blog) know that the Halle runner up can’t win on cow pasture.

I have “trophy teeth”. It is similar to sweet tooth. I need a trophy to bite right now.

June 18th, 2012 at 11:29 pm

@al,

Fed plays 250’s, cause he can. He just loves to play tennis. Others can’t cause the bodies can’t handle too much tennis, even in there mid 20’s.

Djoker deserves the #1 ranking because that is the way rules ranking are, no more, no less. Thank God the Rafa certified 2 yr ranking rule never took effect, otherwise he would have been ranked # 2 for the next 10 years.

June 19th, 2012 at 12:08 am

The race to the top is getting that much tighter. I think all the three have chances. Novak can retain his No.1 ranking, while Nadal can upstage him and it is always foolish to discount a Champion like Roger who might sprung a surprise or two. It will all boil down to the kind of draw they have at Wimbledon. If any of the big servers get into their side of the draw, then they can spoil their show.

June 19th, 2012 at 12:57 am

I think the chances of No 1 changing hands and the next No 1 most likely before USO would be like this

1) Rafa (50%)
2) Novak (45%)
3) Roger (5%)

I can’t imagine anyone other than Rafa or Novak to be No 1 till USO.

June 19th, 2012 at 1:14 am

NK,

I am assuming u read Daves link regarding the points chances. You’re basically saying Rafa will win the tournament..

June 19th, 2012 at 1:18 am

skeezer: Thanks.

“Who do you think has the least odds of getting that #1 ranking at Wimby?”

Based on cold probability — all things being equal (i.e. no context considered) — the odds are that it’s easiest for Djokovic to retain the No. 1 ranking. Even if he loses in the semifinal, then it has to be Federer (not Nadal) who wins the title to dislodge him. For Nadal to win, Djokovic has to lose by the quarterfinal. In addition, presuming the ‘rigged draws’ are not rigged, Federer has an equal chance of landing in either the Djokovic semifinal or Nadal semifinal so there is no guarantee he meets Djokovic — just as there is no guarantee an opponent capable of beating Djokovic will meet him in the semifinal or earlier. So more things have to fall in place for Djokovic to lose the No. 1 ranking, even if he does not win Wimbledon, than for others to take the No. 1 ranking.

Based on cold probability, the person with the least odds of getting that #1 ranking at Wimby is Nadal.

But for argument’s sake, my crystal ball sees a different outcome: Djokovic is least likely to be No. 1 after Wimbledon, or would be hanging on by a thread. This is based on the prediction that Djokovic loses in the semifinal or earlier at Wimbledon,presuming a ‘rigged draw’. From a business standpoint, it would generate more grand slam revenue for Federer or Nadal to win Wimbledon and re-capture the No. 1 ranking, than for Djokovic to hang on to No. 1. Djokovic was financially valuable while on his run to four consecutive slams was alive (he had an easy French Open draw to the semifinals but allowed his matches against Seppi and Tsonga to get more complicated than they should have been — and his final against Nadal was more reminiscent of his 2010 US Open final, where dominated Nadal for one set). Now that he failed in that quest, Djokovic is less valuable to the grand slam business. So this Wimbledon draw might ‘magically’ become a minefield for Djokovic, in terms of players who are likely to trouble him on grass along the way to the semifinal. And Federer will likely be magically drawn to be his semifinal ooponent once again. Novak’s former coach Niki Pilic suggested in February 2011 that grass is his weakest surface. Furthermore, now that Djokovic has lost the French Open he coveted most, it remains to be seen whether his motivation is high to fight to defend his major titles and No. 1 ranking. He has been inconsistent and shaky at times. And don’t be surprised if the center court plays a bit faster than in recent years. All speculation, of course — but if I’m right don’t forget who said it first :)

June 19th, 2012 at 1:19 am

LOL @ johnnymac.

they sure did come from something evil. the force is definitely not with them though.

surely not, now that the clay season is done and dusted.

June 19th, 2012 at 1:27 am

come on RFF, please come and tell us why Dave/skeezer are the best federer fans and why you and fleasher are the worst rafa fans.

we are waiting. i am sure you can find something to copy from what HR posted.

June 19th, 2012 at 1:29 am

All said and done, federer and his fans would like him to get to no.1 by winning wimbledon/USO – but the nature of the rankings is such that you can be number 1 even without winning a slam.

if the atp did not want such a scenario, they should just eliminate points for MS – which federer has 3, rafa 2, murray 2 and djokovic 2. federer also won the atp year ending championship – probably the toughest tournament to win as you need to beat atleast 4 top8 players to win the title.

we can clearly see that there will be a lot of frustrated and miserable souls, if Federer does get the number 1 ranking.

June 19th, 2012 at 1:36 am

I would say the odds are 70% for novak, 15% rafa and 15% fed.

federer has not won a GS in ages and rafa has not won a tournament outside clay in ages.

June 19th, 2012 at 1:43 am

To Nadal fans: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/moslive/article-2159189/Wimbledon-2012s-Rafael-Nadal-Why-I-win-Wimbledon-Andy-Murray-end-Grand-Slam-jinx.html

June 19th, 2012 at 2:01 am

^ Nice pictures and article.

June 19th, 2012 at 2:09 am

im a die-hard Fed fan, but, hey, all the odds are just but a guessing game.

whoever won (fed, nole, rafa) they deserved to be number 1 as they make watching tennis fun.

June 19th, 2012 at 2:14 am

Skeezer says, I am assuming u read Daves link regarding the points chances. You’re basically saying Rafa will win the tournament..

I expect a guy who can reach GS finals for past 2 years on all surfaces and who has been to Wimbledon finals 5 times and won it 2 times to be the favourite.

Novak has won it once, but for me he is not certain to reach the finals. If he reaches, he could be a tough matchup for Nadal. I don’t see anyone other than Novak capable of beating Nadal. But on Grass it may be 50-50 between them. I give more chance for Novak on HC.

June 19th, 2012 at 2:20 am

A little something for Rafa fans:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZfhJr1xSHE

June 19th, 2012 at 2:31 am

Dave —

i liked your (1:19 am) post. so you expect easy draws for fed and rafa ending in a fedal sf?

“…now that Djokovic has lost the French Open he coveted most, it remains to be seen whether his motivation is high…”
i think with pressure of the nole slam gone, he might play much better (otherwise, i cant justify his 5setter against seppi — has to be due to pressure). but who knows?

“And don’t be surprised if the center court plays a bit faster than in recent years.”
why do you say this (just for a fedal sf)? any news/suggestions out?

June 19th, 2012 at 2:38 am

There is a good reason why nadal only won 2 out of the 5 finals he made at wimbledon.

There is also a good reason why he has not won a TOURNAMENT (not talking slams here) outside clay.

Novak is the hands down favorite for wimbledon. then there is day light and then it could be either rafa/fed.

June 19th, 2012 at 3:32 am

“It takes an uncommonly long time for Rafael Nadal to cross a hotel lobby.”

that is the 1st line of the article. Colour me surprised that the uber-quick rafael nadal who does things so excitingly quick on a tennis court! takes an “uncommonly” long time to do something else too!

as usual, another article about nadal where there is almost nothing about what really matters – tennis. anyone with a half brain would know that these guys are no nelson mandela or mother teresa.

they did the same cr@p about tiger woods being such a wonderful person. i would like to show those articles to those authors and slap them for being so naive and gullible.

talk about what we all see on telivision – the tennis!

June 19th, 2012 at 3:46 am

@Brando:

who, since the start of the 2011 season, has done the following:

Has not won one single non-clay tournament (ATP250/500/Masters/GS)?

June 19th, 2012 at 3:49 am

@steven 27,

Thank you very much for posting it, he is great person in and out side, VAMOS RAFA

June 19th, 2012 at 4:11 am

@steve 27

Thank you very much for posting it, he is great person in and out side, VAMOS RAFA

June 19th, 2012 at 4:17 am

Sorry, posted twice,. My nails need to be trimmed,

June 19th, 2012 at 4:20 am

Steve 27, Thanks for the link.

Very refreshing interview from Nadal. Such a great champion. His mindset is going to let him play much longer than many of the former tennis players. I see him one of the very few players winning slams in his 30’s.

June 19th, 2012 at 5:18 am

Here we go again. On come the idiots proclaiming that so-and-so “desrves” or “does not deserve” their ranking.

Why is it so hard to grasp? The ranking is not anyone’s subjective opinion, or a judgement of quality. It’s not an award. It’s plain arithmetic, depending on the points the player has accumulated.

When Wozniaki or Jankovic were No 1, it didn’t mean they were the “best”. It meant simply that they had the points.

June 19th, 2012 at 6:22 am

Feddy baby – the new caroline wozniacki ;-) dont mind you getting no 1 somehow..people will not remember how u broke sampras record….point is you should hold that record…and i really hope feddy bear gets his no ranking somehow and especially shuts that nuisance humble rafa ;-)

June 19th, 2012 at 6:44 am

fed’s play has been depressingly bad these last few months. perhaps he’s been saving himself for wimby and the olympics, but all those shanked or netted forehands, missed slam shots etc give me no hope at all for him at either event. alas!

June 19th, 2012 at 6:52 am

i meant to add that he’ll hopefully prove me wrong. how nice it would be to see him play a final and playing like he has a shot at winning it. that said, i have the distinct impression that nadal and djokoic play him with no doubts at all about the result.

June 19th, 2012 at 6:55 am

@Humble Rafa,

Isn’t this hate of yours wearing a bit thin?

Most RF fans want RF to be number one and win grand slams, but they can also appreciate Rafa’s qualities and achievements as well.

This constant negativity of yours is getting old.

Time to change the record I think?

June 19th, 2012 at 6:55 am

this is his chance…

fed wins wimby and becomes number 1 it will be his biggest achievment ever!!!!

June 19th, 2012 at 7:12 am

@Ged:

i agree- i think rafa and now novak play him at slams w/o fear- they know fed has a greater problem facing them, then they do facing him.

It’s just they way it is- one guy is 30 going on 31- pretty much winding down in his career. the other 2 are are in their mid 20s and in the midst of their prime.

NO SURPRISE REALLY!

June 19th, 2012 at 7:38 am

Djolovic will be the favourite because od improvements in his game. Lets face it anything can happen at Wimbledon!! Rafa is my favourite. Roger is good and full of himself. Andy can if he pulls himself together. Berdyce can win as well!! Pity Del Portro battling with injuries.Bring it on go Rafa Go!!!!!!

June 19th, 2012 at 7:43 am

Fleischer Says:
Djokovic might have won 3 slams and RU in the other, but Federer has won more 250s and RU in the most recent one. So Federer deserves the number 1 ranking more than Djokovic.

June 18th, 2012 at 1:24 pm

Best entertainment I have had all afternoon!

Keep ’em coming Flesh!

June 19th, 2012 at 8:10 am

First and the most important – there’s no droping points before GSs. Whatever happens (even if Nole doesn’t play Wimbledon) he will remain No.1. Simple maths.

June 19th, 2012 at 8:28 am

Most RF fans want RF to be number one and win grand slams, but they can also appreciate Rafa’s qualities and achievements as well.
—
Don’t see it much. It is all about the Arrogant One. All the time. Don’t fool yourself into thinking that those Arrotards are somehow balanced.

June 19th, 2012 at 10:07 am

The Mind Reels:

Time to post that baby hulk hair-pulling link again.

Forgot to mention how was perfect for these threads!

where did you find that? lol…

June 19th, 2012 at 11:01 am

Great interview with Rafa, comes across very well. Love his attitude towards competing.

June 19th, 2012 at 11:05 am

To copy Colin: Here we go again. On come the ignorant “idiots” proclaiming that Federer would be Wozniaki or Jankovic if he became No. 1, that he won’t be the “best” but just an accumulator of points based on plain math.

They need to learn basic tennis history before blurting their opinions. Here are just some tennis players who were ranked No. 1 without winning a slam in the preceding 52 weeks:
– Jimmy Conners: September 1975-August 1976
– John McEnroe: November 1982, February/June 1983
– Ivan Lendl: February/October 1983, January 1984
– Pete Sampras April 1993
– Andre Agassi January 1996
– Marcelo Ríos March/August 1998 (many felt Rios deserved the No. 1 ranking in 1998 over Sampras)
– Etc.

Why is it so hard to grasp?

What they don’t tell you is that several players became No. 1 because they were lucky to win a slam at the right time, but their results the rest of the year did not support their ranking.

June 19th, 2012 at 11:35 am

@conty: gladly.

http://tinyurl.com/3rx8llq

I’ve probably said it before, but I’ll say it again — I’m a Federer fan, so of course I’d like to see him return to #1, with or without winning Wimbledon (though obviously another title would be great). It’s useless for people to waste their fingers tapping away about how Federer doesn’t deserve it or how he’d be another Wozniacki. While Dave has provided some useful comparisons above, the other feature distinguishing Federer from Ms. Wozniacki is that, while she in fact doesn’t have a Grand Slam title to her name, Federer has 16, which, last time I checked, is the most any male has ever won. Brad Gilbert may sound annoying when he talks about winning ugly, but I see this as a similar situation: getting to #1, however you do it, is still being #1. You wouldn’t be at the top if you didn’t deserve it.

Obviously, this hasn’t happened. He may not return to #1, or he may do it by winning Wimbledon. Whatever happens, though, won’t happen out of “fairness.”

June 19th, 2012 at 11:52 am

I find it funny that people have started the discussion as if Roger is already No 1. Just Cool down. It may never happen, and it’s wise to discuss if he becomes one.

Just to make a point, don’t ridicule a champion like Roger comparing him with Woz.

June 19th, 2012 at 11:57 am

Nirmal Kumar Says:
I think the chances of No 1 changing hands and the next No 1 most likely before USO would be like this

1) Rafa (50%)
2) Novak (45%)
3) Roger (5%)

I can’t imagine anyone other than Rafa or Novak to be No 1 till USO.

So funny. Then donot give any chanc to Fed!

If you give him 5% and he should get it. Then what are you gonna say. Well it was the 5 %?

This is idiotiv to make a statement like this. You can come away with murder if you make statements like that.
If you are a fair minded person you claim Roger has no chance.

I would say that it is pretty even steven between the of them.

June 19th, 2012 at 12:06 pm

harry: if my speculations are right, Nadal and Federer should get easier draws than Djokovic… leading to a Fedal final.

Djokovic: with the pressure gone, he might play better as you say. However, when relentless pressure is suddenly lifted and their big goal is gone, many people tend to suffer a letdown. We’ll see how he responds at Wimbledon and US Open.

Regarding the center court speed being slightly faster, it’s just a hunch. If I were the Wimbledon groundskeeper, this year I’d prefer slightly faster matches that don’t destroy the courts as much so there is less damage to repair before the Olympics a few weeks after the Championships. All the would have to do is loosen the soil and moisten the courts more to speed up the courts.

Or Wimbledon could ask Slazenger to produce sightly lighter balls (the Slazenger balls used are quite heavy), which should speed up the ball.

Just speculations, no evidence to back it up.

****

Between 1974 Australian Open and 1978 US Open (age 26), Jimmy Connors won 5 slams. For the next four years Connors failed to win any slam. Connors’ next slam came when he was almost 30 years old — 1982 Wimbledon. At age 30 Connors also won 1982 US Open and at age 31 won 1983 US Open. Connors also reached the 1984 Wimbledon final. Connors did all this in an era with John McEnroe, Ivan Lendl, Mats Wilander, Vitas Gerulaitis, Guillermo Vilas.

June 19th, 2012 at 12:08 pm

It would be pretty epic for Fed to win Wimbledon and become number 1 at the same time (circa 2009). I guess doing so well in all those smaller tournaments has allowed him to be in this position. Still, he needs to win another major to close the deal.

I find it strange that Roger has better odds of being number 1 after Wimbledon than Rafa. But I guess Fed has more room to improve from last year (Quarterfinals) than Nadal (Final). But for the most part, Djokovic still has his fate in his own hands. It should be another exciting 2 weeks!

June 19th, 2012 at 12:08 pm

And by better odds I mean that Fed can afford Djokovic reaching the semis whereas Nadal cannot.

June 19th, 2012 at 12:11 pm

Dave,

They way I see them speeding up the things would be to cut the grass higher and get it thicker. This will take away the bounce and keep it low. Basically softening up the surface. More grass, less surface. Can’t see them moistening it up, they slip enough when it gets dewey. Lighter balls would help. Don’t see all this happening though. Personally, next year I think they should tear it all up and start over.

June 19th, 2012 at 1:17 pm

Skeezer: the current strain of Rye grass used at Wimbledon is partly what contributes to the bounce — this grass allows more air circulation which tends to dry the soil faster. However, I’m not sure what the effect of grass height and thickness of this particular grass strain would be — perhaps it would be what you said. In any case, the cut height is 8mm (based on their research for present day play and survival), so perhaps a slight change to 9 mm might make a difference, assuming their machines can be calibrated to that height.
http://aeltc2010.wimbledon.org/en_GB/about/infosheets/grasscourts_general.html

The groundskeepers maintain that hardness and moisture of the soil are two factors that most affect the bounce and speed of courts, not the grass. I’m not suggesting spraying the courts during a match like they do at the end of the the clay at the French Open, but after the end of day’s matches and before the start of the next day’s matches so that the grass remains dry but soil slightly moist when the matches are played (so it won’t be slippery). An Aussie who was a temporary groundskeeper at 2001 Wimbledon said how the heavy rains that year had kept the courts relatively low bouncing and fast.

June 19th, 2012 at 2:03 pm

Dave —

your speculation/theory about faster courts/ball is interesting.

i had asked you about faster balls a few days back in another thread (due to some other poster mentioning this a couple of months back). so there might be something in it after all. i still think it is only a *might*, but let us wait, speculate and watch :)

June 19th, 2012 at 2:24 pm

I agree with Colin. Whoever accumulates enough points to be #1 “deserves” it. And on top of that, we’re talking about 3 multiple slam winning, all-time greats. This is not the same as slamless number ones in the WTA. Obviously I would love for Rafa to get the #1, but if Fed does it then good for him.

June 19th, 2012 at 2:46 pm

this article sums up perfectly the no.1 scenario.

Based on this, i think NOVAK will remain no.1 post wimby.

http://www.atpworldtour.com/News/Tennis/2012/06/Features/Federer-In-Contention-For-No1.aspx

June 19th, 2012 at 2:49 pm

If Nadal and Djokovic lose early enough it’s actually possible for Federer to reclaim #1 without winning the title. That would make him a World #1 who does not hold any slam titles — a point Caroline Wozniacki and Dinara Safina were oft criticized for.

It’s unlikely to happen of course. I can’t see anyone #1 at the end other than Djokovic.

Fed has been taking a number of inexplicable upsets lately, even on his once best surface.

June 19th, 2012 at 3:12 pm

@ Brando

Given the fact that Rafa and Novak have been so dominant over the last few slams, another strong performance from them at wimby won’t surprise anybody. Another Rafaole appears very likely. Roger does not appear to be a big threat and, therefore, Novak’s ranking does appear safe since he has to lose in the quarter final(very unlikely) for the more likely scene of Rafa mounting an assault for the top spot by winning wimby. Rafa is unlikely to be number one after wimby but it is going to be very close race between him and Novak for the year-end ranking. Roger has to play at a very high level(again unlikely)to have a shot just before or after the US open to have the top spot for the two weeks needed to break Sampras’ record. I think it is his last somewhat realistic shot at getting back the top spot for one or two weeks.

June 19th, 2012 at 3:22 pm

@rogerrafa:

agree with your post.

the maths say feds is in with a shot, reality suggests that it shall be another rafole showdown, and fed will be a spectator to it.

time will tell really, but i think fed’s performance in the last 3 tournies is far from that of a soon to be no.1

June 19th, 2012 at 3:36 pm

nadal being a serious contender for year end number 1? with his record indoors, he will be very lucky to hang on the no.3 position.

if murray makes a big move in the grass/usopen season and moves close to top 3 – you can be certain nadal will finish @ 4. nadal’s indoor record is as bad as sampras’ record on clay. fortunately for him, they dont have as much points indoors as on clay.

and ofcourse the usual slowing of playing conditions implies nadal’s handicap is not as seriously exposed as sampras’ was!

June 19th, 2012 at 3:52 pm

@Anthony Edwards: true that Nadal has a poor indoor record. Given how tight the points race is right now, I’ll be curious to see whether Nadal chooses to play Bercy this year. He’s competed there only 3 times (losing in the F, Q, and most recently, the S) but hasn’t played there since 2009. He’s not defending any points, which means he could pick up a decent chunk if he chooses to play.

Federer’s defending in Bercy, though he opted not to play Shanghai last year and so could also pick up a decent chunk of points there later in the season. Nadal competed there last year but lost to Mayer early, and Murray is defending. We’ll see who’s healthy and who’s not.

June 19th, 2012 at 4:08 pm

And I guess I should qualify: “could pick up a decent chunk if he chooses to play” of course assumes that he doesn’t crash out in the second round (after his first-round bye).

June 19th, 2012 at 4:09 pm

Re: year end number 1 race & post-USO points to defend:

Nole —-560 points
Rafa —-560 points
Fed —-3000 points
Muzz —1930 points

Post-USO Nole and Rafa can pick up some points, depending on how they’ve done at defending up to that point in the season.

June 19th, 2012 at 4:20 pm

^ Obviously, though, Rafa and Nole have the most to defend between now and the USO, especially Nole. Rafa didn’t do too well at the Canadian Masters or Cincy so he can add to his points at both of those events (Canada tends to be better for him). I think Fed was in the QFs and semis at those Masters, while Murray won Cincy and lost early in Canada. Nole has the least wiggle room to be sure – I suppose if he were to finally win Cincy, he could get a few 100 points there (he’s been in 3 finals so he should be able to win it one of these years).

And the Olympics offer some points too – but I am not sure how they work. Are they just added to the total and removed next year?

It seems likely number 1 will change hands for a bit but post-USO there could potentially be another shift.

Besides defending/gaining, other possible (perhaps not the most probable) scenarios that could have an effect on the number 1 race: someone besides Fed, Rafa or Nole wins one (or both) of the next two slams; one of the top three is injured (hope not :/); one of them is upset early at one of the next two slams.

June 19th, 2012 at 4:30 pm

Jane, so here are the points that the three players made from Canada to the US Open:

– Federer: 990 points (Canada R16 90 + Cincinnati Q 180 + US Open SF 720)

– Djokovic: 3,600 points (Canada W 1,000 + Cincinnati F 600 + US Open W 2,000)

– Nadal: 1,390 points (Canada R32 10 + Cincinnati Q 180 + US Open F 1,200)

Last year Federer idiotically played Davis Cup after Wimbledon and US Open, while his rivals rest after Wimbledon (and Djokovic played only 1.5 sets in Davis Cup after US Open). As a consequence he wasn’t able to implement his post-Wimbledon training block after Wimbledon and wasn’t in good form when he entered Canada and Cincinnati, where of course he had to run into Tsonga again and Berdych.

Olympics Men’s Singles (28 July to 5 August) – ranking points added for one year:
Gold Medal: 750
Silver Medal: 450
Bronze Meda: 340
Loser 3rd/4th: 270
Quarterfinals: 135
R16: 70
R32: 35
R64: 5

WTF: “If Nadal and Djokovic lose early enough it’s actually possible for Federer to reclaim #1 without winning the title.”
Even if Djokovic loses in the first round, Federer must win Wimbledon to reclaim No. 1. A finalist position leaves him 5 points short of tying Djokovic.

harry: sorry, missed your question about faster balls in another thread. Anyways, we’ll know soon how the courts and balls are playing.

June 19th, 2012 at 5:26 pm

Dave, thanks. I added them all together.

From Canada to through to YEC:

Nole: 4160
Fed: 3990
Rafa: 1950
Murray: 3660

By looking at these numbers, Rafa may actually have the best chance to end the year as number 1, as he has the least points to defend from after Wimbledon until the YEC inclusive.

June 19th, 2012 at 5:45 pm

i wonder what their clay points were this year verse last year—

i know rafa would be
2012——2000(RG)+1000(Rome)+1000(MC)+500(Barc.)+90 (Mad)=4590
2011——2000(RG)+600 Rome+600 Madride+1000 MC+500 Barcelona=4700

So Rafa actually got more points last year on clay even though his dominance and season seemed much stronger this year. I guess the Madrid Fiasco came into play there. Key points lost because of the blue stuff.

Listen, part of Nadal strategy of getting to the top is to rack up a ton of points on clay and at grand slams. Nothing wrong with that. You do what you have to.

June 19th, 2012 at 6:24 pm

Kimberly,

Their clay results:

Nole 2011 — 250(Serbia)+1000(Madrid)+1000(Rome)+720(RG) = 2970
Nole 2012 — 1200(RG)+600(Rome)+180 (Madrid)+600(MC)= 2580

Nole lost 390 points on clay this year; he got to all the finals (except Madrid) and added Monte Carlo/dropped Belgrade.

Fed 2011 — 180(MC)+360(Madrid)+90 (Rome)+1200(RG)=1830
Fed 2012 — 1000(Madrid)+360(Rome)+720(RG)=2080

Fed gained 250 points

Murray 2011 — 360(MC)+90(Madrid)+360(Rome)+720(RG)=1530
Murray 2012 — 180(MC)+90(Barc)+90(Rome)+360(RG) =720

Murray lost the most on clay, 820 points.

June 19th, 2012 at 6:45 pm

And grand slam points year to date

Nadal
2011 360 (australia) plus 2000=2360
2012 1200 (aus) plus 2000=3200

Djokovic
2011 2000 (aus) plus 720 Rg=2720
2012 2000 (aus) plus 1200 Rg=3200

Federer
2011 720 aus plus 1200 Rg=1920
2012 720 aus plus 720 Rg=1440

Murray
2011 1200 aus plus 720 Rg=1920
2012 720 aus plus 360 Rg=1080

So Murray has lost the most points via grandslams and nadal gained the most year to date. Will recalculate after Wimbledon should be interesting.

June 19th, 2012 at 7:39 pm

hard not to get my hopes of for fed winning wimbledon and getting to no. 1. his form is no evidence that it will happen. past cannot predict future, however!

Kimberley, is there PRE-registration for the bracket?

June 19th, 2012 at 7:41 pm

Sienna says : If you give him 5% and he should get it. Then what are you gonna say. Well it was the 5 %?

Yeah, just that if Novak or Rafa does a Nalbandian act, Roger does have 5% chance. I will always leave that option open.

This is idiotiv to make a statement like this. You can come away with murder if you make statements like that.

No one makes more idiotic statement than you. I believe you claimed Rafa is in decline right before the clay season started. Now we could see who sounded idiotic. LOL.

June 19th, 2012 at 11:34 pm

Did I mention that the heat just went up 3-1 in the series!

June 20th, 2012 at 12:07 am

@Kimberly
Very neat calculations/comparisons re: your comments above. Thanks.

June 20th, 2012 at 12:24 am

Interesting take on the coaches:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog/2012/jun/19/coach-federer-djokovic-nadal-murray

June 20th, 2012 at 3:12 am

Margot,

Very interesting read, thanks for posting it.

June 20th, 2012 at 3:48 am

Your welcome darling.:) Loves Nole doesn’t he?

June 20th, 2012 at 4:59 am

Margot,

:-)

June 20th, 2012 at 5:03 am

Even if novak doesn’t win wimbledon he deserves to be no. 1 he has dominated the majors over the last 12 months.

Nadal has a case as has bagged the french and was runner up at the other slams.

Federer — just don’t see it in reality. not deserving. He has done wonderful in non slams but has not delivered in the slams. Just like Dinara Safina when she was at the top. Federer is a legend and perhaps best of all time but not the best of this time. if he can take wimbledon and at least us open to the final …ok there’s a debate for certain.

June 20th, 2012 at 6:18 am

Did I mention that the heat just went up 3-1 in the series!
—
No but the Heat are definitely the better team. Congratulations!

Lebron is not like other basketball players. He doesn’t sleep around. I can’t say the same about his mom. :)

June 20th, 2012 at 6:41 am

the grass in wimbledon is not any slower!

http://www.thetennisspace.com/on-court/wimbledon-groundsman-its-a-myth-that-the-grass-is-slower/

June 20th, 2012 at 8:20 am

So, all the arguing about court speed was for nothing:)

June 20th, 2012 at 8:53 am

@antonio: players don’t make cases for being #1. They win matches, accumulate points, and voila — your ranking materializes accordingly. If Novak loses at Wimbledon in a round that causes him to lose the #1 spot, well, then it means someone above him has played more consistently over the past 52 weeks. Last fall’s playing activity is still (obviously) being factored in to the rankings, and given that Djokovic had a pretty subpar last couple of months (which people like to forget when saying that he deserves it), it’s now the reason why things are so tight at the top. To say nothing of the consistency that Nadal and Federer have provided to keep themselves close.

June 20th, 2012 at 9:25 am

Humble Rafa

So we are sinking to “yo mama” level now?

Good luck in Wimbledon. I need the Heat to win on thursday and you to win and get back to #1 then it would be happy times for me.

June 20th, 2012 at 9:38 am

I think the slowness is caused more to do with the balls than the courts. They have been increasing the weight of the balls used. I don’t think they tamper with the courts.

June 20th, 2012 at 10:22 am

margot, hello! Thanks for the article: a nice mix of method and madness indeed. :)

June 20th, 2012 at 10:27 am

This is good motivation for Rafa and Fed….great opportunity to be No_1 again

But off the two, based on honest opionion….I’d give Fed the extra edge to be No_1 after Wimbledon….

June 20th, 2012 at 10:34 am

@antonio: “Federer is a legend and perhaps best of all time but not the best of this time.”

At last the puzzle of Federer’s status is resolved!

About the grass courts: the head groundsman at Wimbledon says:”“I don’t think the grass has slowed down. The ball still comes off the grass at the same speed. But, as the courts are a bit harder, the ball bounces a bit higher”.

In effect, even if not literally, this means the courts are slower, since the higher bounce gives the players more time. But then of course there’s the question of the balls, the strings, the state of the economy, global warming, the feel good factor, the feel bad factor, and other matters which have not yet been considered.

June 20th, 2012 at 10:50 am

Margot—good to see you!

June 20th, 2012 at 11:01 am

Ok, eveRytime Wimby comes up someone finds something about Seaward…geez the guys has been trying ro explain his “no change” for ten years….

“Seaward on the speed of the court: “I don’t think the grass has slowed down………..”

Then he rants on about how it HAS changede and what they did it and why the ball bounces higher (change!).

NK, they slowed the balls down way back in ’95…..It didn’t have the impact that the surface change had.!!

I am sure Dave will chime in on this I don’t have the fortitude text all over again, ugh.

June 20th, 2012 at 11:05 am

I miss players like Karsten Braasch.

June 20th, 2012 at 11:06 am

go roger.

but maybe this year none of the top 4 wins wimbledon. pray tell what will people on this site have left to talk about if that happens?

June 20th, 2012 at 8:25 pm

andrea, there will be new calculations involved. ;)

Actually, some of us do discuss other players occasionally.

p.s. can you believe there is finally some sun!?

June 20th, 2012 at 8:30 pm

Last year Roger peaked o soon… I believe the monster is set to awake the next 2 1/2 weeks. Last year he knew exactly where things went wrong and he has taken counter meassurements. Therefor his chances of regaining # 1after wimbly are 40%, with his % graded up with percent if he ends up in Djoker’s half.

Someone here claimed 5% but that is only possible odds if you have not payed attention this year.

June 21st, 2012 at 1:45 pm

antonio Says:
Even if novak doesn’t win wimbledon he deserves to be no. 1 he has dominated the majors over the last 12 months.

Nadal has a case as has bagged the french and was runner up at the other slams.

Federer — just don’t see it in reality. not deserving. He has done wonderful in non slams but has not delivered in the slams. Just like Dinara Safina when she was at the top. Federer is a legend and perhaps best of all time but not the best of this time. if he can take wimbledon and at least us open to the final …ok there’s a debate for certain.

June 20th, 2012 at 6:18 am

antonio,

How on this earth, could you ever compare roger federer to inara Safina? No resemblence whatsoever.

June 21st, 2012 at 2:51 pm

Federer’s career record at Wimbledon is an absurd 59-7, for a winning percentage of .894. Sampras’ career record at Wimbledon is a somehow-even more absurd 63-7, for a winning percentage of .900. Federer has appeared in seven Wimbledon finals, and so has Sampras. Federer’s record in those seven finals is 6-1, his one loss coming to Rafael Nadal in 2008. Sampras’ record in his seven finals was a clean 7-0.

Federer reached those seven finals in consecutive years, from 2003 to 2009 — but lost the sixth one, as mentioned above. The year before he started his streak, he was dumped in the first round, while he lost in the quarterfinals the year after.

Sampras, meanwhile, did not reach his seven finals consecutively. He won three straight from 1993 to 1995, and then four more from 1997 to 2000. His only loss came in 1996 in the quarterfinals to eventual winner Richard Krajicek. If not for Krajicek, Sampras might well have won 80 percent of the Wimbledon titles that decade, and all consecutively.

Not only that, but in 1992 — the year before he started his streak — Sampras fell in the semifinals, compared to Federer’s first-round defeat. What in hindsight is quite the coincidence, Sampras’ 31-match winning streak at Wimbledon was halted in the quarterfinals in 2001 by Federer. The future Swiss superstar, only 19 at the time, took the champ down in five sets.

So what it comes down to, really, is whether you find Sampras’ clean record in finals to be more impressive than Federer’s run of seven straight finals appearances. Most people would say it is.

Of course, all this is not to diminish Federer’s accomplishments at Wimbledon. He is the second-greatest champion Wimbledon has ever seen, a nose ahead of Bjorn Borg.

Borg has his own impressive list of Wimbledon achievements — five consecutive titles (a record shared with Federer) from 1976-1980 followed up by a loss in the 1981 final, 41 consecutive matches won (a record he holds himself) and a mind-boggling career record of 51-4 for a winning percentage of .927 (also a record) — but Federer edges him out based on the sixth title and his career accomplishments in total.

June 21st, 2012 at 3:41 pm

Right madmax, It would be interesting what could have achieved the legendary Rod Laver.
Laver’s career prior to the Open Era Took him out of contention at the majors for five years, Because Were only allowed to compete amateurs at Grand Slam tournaments.

Regardless, the Aussie won Wimbledon four times, and again in 1961-1962 During The Open Era in 1968-1969. Reached the finals Laver Also in 1959-1960.

Many speculate That historical Wimbledon title might Have Been Greater count if not for His Absence at the event from 1963-1967;
Laver’s career record at Wimbledon was 50-7, winning the event four times in 11 tries.

As clearly mentioned Martina Navratilova:
Pete Sampras, the greatest grass court player that played the game.

June 21st, 2012 at 5:46 pm

Not only is Rafael Nadal is a champion’s champion. He conducts himself like a gentleman at all time, plays EVERY point, is respectful of his opponent before, during and after the match whether he is the victor or the vanquished. There have been times when Novak and Roger have been arrogant and full of themselves. You never see this from Rafa. There is no player on the tour, in my view, who deserves it more than Rafa and there is no better exemplar for the sport. Period.

June 24th, 2012 at 11:59 am