Will Federer Play Paris? For Now He’s In The Draw Along With Djokovic And Murray

“Tsonga, who just hired ex-Monfils/Hewitt coach Roger Rasheed”

Oh, that’s probably a good move. He’s been doing alright without a coach for about a year now, but it seems that to take it to the next level, someone in his corner helping him along would be advisable.

“and he’s embedded in a hellacious section in the bottom of the draw ”

Hellacious! Ha! I like it Sean. Er, I mean I don’t like it. Hmm, I like the word, but don’t like that Nole’s embedded in it, if you get my drift. Hope he can get outta hellacious section. He’ll probably start play on Hallowe’en too! Boo!

October 27th, 2012 at 8:01 pm

I wonder why, though, that you picked Berd over Murray or Fed to reach the final? Murray should be more rested and he often does well indoors.

For some reason, I think Berd or Delpo could do some damage at WTF this year, but that’s just a hunch. Not based on much else.

October 27th, 2012 at 8:04 pm

That would be pretty crappy if hed did. Can you just wait for the draw to come out, see if you like it, then drop out?

October 27th, 2012 at 9:54 pm

Fed will decide what’s best for himself. His Davis Cup participation and what it did to him in Shanghai would probably weigh a bit in his decision.

I hope he chooses to play, though. It’d be a bummer for the Paris crowd if he didn’t. If he did play, I am sure he’ll go deep and save a few ranking points at the very least, instead of losing a whopping 1000 points. With him and Djoker so close in points, those precious few ranking points could spell the difference between landing a smoothie or a toughie draw in big tournaments next year.

October 27th, 2012 at 11:40 pm

Come on jane…Sean always picks against Andy ……;)

October 28th, 2012 at 4:10 am

skeezer where are you? Have you read this article? “I would listen to Roger Federer himself, not listen to some guy out of his camp so you can take pot shots at Fed” #TooSkeptical

October 28th, 2012 at 4:38 am

@ Margot

That’s right margot, especially since Wimbledon. Long may it continue :)

October 28th, 2012 at 6:54 am

A good understanding of how the ranking systems function, is in my view indispensable to correctly estimate Federer’s chances of still finishing 2012 as the YE no1. Such is only possible if one examines both the rules and the manner in which they are applied.
For instance, the number of tournament results taken into account – for say the 30 highest ranked players – is de facto restricted to 16 tournament results for determining the WTA singles ranking and to 18 tournament results for the ATP singles rankings and YED rankings .
As for the ATP singles rankings and Race to London rankings, these 18 tournament results can be divided into 3 groups: the 4 Slam results, the 8 or 9 Masters Tournaments results and the 5 or 6 best results in the remaining tournaments (eventually with Davis Cup results being part of these 5 or 6 remaining best results). The results of the 4 slams and the 8 mandatory Masters count automatically as 12 tournament results, whether a player really participated or not doesn’t matter. When a player participates in the Monte Carlo Masters (like Ferrer) only the 5 best result of his remaining results are taken into account for his ranking. Also, when a player is committed to play in an ATP 500 but subsequently decides not to play the tournament, it also counts as a tournament played, and his result for this tournament wil be 0. As a result of these rules, the ranking of Roger Federer is determined by his 4 slam and 8 Master tournament results, by his 5 best ATP 500 results and by 0 for the Tokyo tournament; in the same way Janko Tipsarovic ranking points are determined by 4 slam and 8 Master results and his best 6 remaining results (among which 145 points for Davis Cup wins).

Dit is ook de reden waarom de YED rankings met de nodige voorzichtigheid moeten worden bekeken.
De Race to London ranking points kunnen met name punten omvatten die nog kunnen wegvallen door deze beperking tot 18 tornooi resultaten. Nemen we als voorbeeld Federer’s en Tipsarevic YED ranking points.
Federer’s YED race to London ranking points bedragen momenteel 9255 points. In de ATP Singles ranking bedragen zijn ranking points daarentegen 12165 points. Het verschil tussen beide totalen is 2910 points. Dit verschil laat zich verklaren als volgt: points of last year still to drop in 2013( basel + Paris + WTF = 500 + 1000 + 1500 ) minus 90 points for Doha).

This is also the reason why the Race to London ranking points must be looked at with caution.
The Race to London ranking points may in particular include points that can still drop by applying this limitation-rule to 18 tournament results. Take for example Federer and Tipsarevic YED ranking points.
Federer’s Race to London ranking points amounts currently to 9,255 points. In the ATP Singles ranking his ranking points amount however to 12,165 points , because these ranking points still include his Basel, Paris and WTF points from last year. The difference between the two totals is however not 3000 points as one could expect, but only 2910 points, because his Doha points of this year (90 points ) have not been counted because of the 18-tournament-results rule. These points are still counted in the Race to London rankings because his Basel results have not yet been included in this race. Once they will be counted, his Doha ranking points will also drop in the Race to London ranking points.
The same will happen with Janko Tipsarovic.
Tipsarovic’s Race to London ranking points amounts currently to 2,810 points. In the ATP Singles ranking, his points amount however to 3,160 points , because his ATP singles ranking points still include his ST.Peterburg, Paris and WTF points from last year. The difference between the two totals is however not 440 points ( 150 + 90 + 200) as one could expect, but only 350 points, because one of his non-countable tournaments in the ATP singles ranking is still taken into account in the Race to London rankings. Tipsarovic’s 150 points of ST.Petursburg will drop the 29.10.2012 and be replaced by 90 points of a today still not-countable tournament results, which implies that his Race to London Ranking Points will climb with 90 points without actually playing at the moment.
Bottomline of all this: the current points gap between Djokovic and Federer in the Race to London, is slightly misleading.
After Del Potro’s victory in Basel, the gap between Djokovic’s and Roger Federer’s “Race to London points“ will only decrease with 210 points, because of the Doha points falling off, which brings the gap, currently being at 2,155 points (11,410 – 9,255 ) down to 1.945 points (11,410 – 9,465 points).
If Djokovic reaches the R16 in the Paris Master next week, he gains another 90 points, which would give him an unbridgeable lead of 2035 points in the Race to London and make him the YE no 1.

October 28th, 2012 at 12:07 pm

wilfred “For instance, the number of tournament results taken into account – for say the 30 highest ranked players – is de facto restricted… to 18 tournament results for the ATP singles rankings and YED rankings .”

So are you saying because Fed can’t count both Doha and Basel points that therefore…”If Djokovic reaches the R16 in the Paris Master next week, he gains another 90 points, which would… make him the YE no 1″ ? Hopefully I’ve followed you correctly. In other words, Fed’s met his 18 tournament limit? Sorry if I am misunderstanding.

As far as I can tell Nole’s played only 15 events so far this year. What happens when a player plays less than the limit? They get only their points from those events counted I presume, nothing from previous season?

October 28th, 2012 at 2:22 pm

Fed is out of Paris. Novak is year end no.1 !

October 28th, 2012 at 2:30 pm

Hanescu allegedly will replace him. Gonna wait for that to be official to do my draw

October 28th, 2012 at 2:32 pm

i’d also pull out if I saw that draw. Time for some much needed r & r.

October 28th, 2012 at 2:37 pm

How do you know dari? That’s surprising. But I guess Fed would rather push for another WTF title instead of #1.

If it’s true, that’s nice for Nole. :)

Kinda disappointing for Paris though. Would’ve like to see Fed and Muzz get to the semis again and see what happens.

Not sure what to expect from Andy; he probably wouldn’t mind adding a Masters to his cabinet this year, but I should think he’d prioritize a win at WTF even more, especially as he couldn’t play there last year, AND he’s done so well at home.

October 28th, 2012 at 2:37 pm

Bercy masters Twitter
RT @bnppmasters Once Roger Federer withdrawal will be official (organization statement), Victor Hanescu will replace him in the main draw #bnppm

October 28th, 2012 at 2:40 pm

Thanks dari; I just read this which confirms the tweet:

http://www.sportsnet.ca/tennis/2012/10/28/federer_pulls_out_of_paris_masters/

October 28th, 2012 at 2:57 pm

@ Jane
It works indeed as a limit in my opinion.
The ranking of a player with direct access to the MAsters, the ATP 500 and ATP 250 (32 best players) is de facto limited to 18 tournament results. For lower ranked players, like my fellow country man David Goffin, this limitation is not (yet) applied though.
Results prior to the current year are of course not taken into account in the Race to London rankings.

October 28th, 2012 at 3:25 pm

This means that #2 is getting very close for Andy: Fed is at 9465 and Andy is at 7510.

That’s a difference of 1955, but when we subtract Fed’s 1000 points from Paris last year, as well as Andy’s 180 points points from Paris last year, that cuts the point’s difference to 1135 points.

Murray has nothing to defend at WTF (he played only one match, which he lost, and then he pulled out); Fed has 1500 points to defend.

Depending on what happens at WTF and pre-AO next year, there’s a slight chance that Andy could be seeded #2 at the AO, although he has 250 to defend at Brisbane and Fed has only 90 to defend at Doha. So it’s likely Fed will still have #2 for the AO. But it’s getting very close.

October 28th, 2012 at 4:11 pm

its a vain attempt to somehow see if he will play better in London but as far as i can see, Fed is playing so bad again that nothing will change in London

i can see him losing all 3 pool matches infact, his play since he played Berdych in the US Open has fallen absurdly low

his perfomance v Del Potro today was laughable at times, especially on every big point.

October 28th, 2012 at 4:13 pm

I have no idea if that’s right, LOL. I am bad with numbers.

wilfred, thanks for your reply/clarification.

October 28th, 2012 at 4:16 pm

Not surprisingly, my numbers are wrong at 4:11 because I subtracted points off the race rather than rolling rankings. It’s close, but not quite that close.

Fed = 12165, less 200 Basel, less 1000 Paris, less 1500 WTF = 9465

Murray = 7690, less 180 Paris = 7510

So there is 1955 points between them, period.

There are 2500 points left to play for this year.
Fed’s not playing Paris so just 1500 for him.

Which means Paris could end up being an important event for Andy; if he wins, he cuts the points difference to less than 1000.

October 28th, 2012 at 4:33 pm

Who cares about whether Federer is no. 1 or not? Seriously. He has been number 1 for 302 weeks. Who on earth is going to come close to that.

And Mike, you seriously think he isn’t playing well? Have you watched any of his matches this year? I don’t understand when people say things like this, that make no sense. Back it up with something at least.

The person who deserves to be number 1, is novak right now. The points account for that, but so proud to be a federer fan. He has been awesome for his fans this year. Truly great.

October 28th, 2012 at 4:44 pm

wilfred,

Thanks, I was close but not close enough… But at least I tried:)

jane,

I can see longest serving and suffering #3 and #4 in the world fighting for #1 next year, rightfuly so and I will tell you why.
Federer is defending YEC, SF at AO, Rotterdam, Dubai and IW,
Andy is defending Bugger all until Wimbledon. If he makes good run in Paris and YEC a see him as very very close to #1 by the time Wimbledon comes. Of course I hope my man can hold to #1, but it will be tight race next year, I believe.
I didn’t forget Nadal, how can domebody forget Rafa, but he defends tons of point until Wimbledon and I have yet to see him playing, something tells me he will start with Abu Dhabi.
So yes there is majot shift in a fight for #1.
Good for tennis:)

October 28th, 2012 at 4:49 pm

Wog Boy, I agree: it will be tight. Everything Rafa gets from Wimbledon onward is gravy, and it’s true that Andy doesn’t have too many points to defend early next year: title in Brisbane, finals in Dubai and Miami, SF in AO. I can’t remember but not much on clay either as he had back issues. Definitely Nole, Rafa and Fed will have more to back up. Post Wimbledon is where Rafa can make his move. It’ll be very interesting indeed.

October 28th, 2012 at 4:56 pm

madmax,

Agree, he achieved this year what very very few believed in, I don’t think he will play as many tournaments next year, just big one.

October 28th, 2012 at 4:58 pm

I think Fed had the toughest path to the finals at Paris. I’m glad he pulled out because he would have been burned out for the WTF, where a win there would set another record for Fed . It’s best to let Murray, if he gets past T-Berd, and Djokovic slug it out in the finals, which would leave them ragged for WTF.

I can see why T-Berd was chosen instead of Murray. This is an indoor tournament, and no wind to disturb Tomaz, who might be looking to get some revenge for the USO SF loss.

October 28th, 2012 at 5:02 pm

Madmax,

Ditto here on your post. Well said.

Are you ging to O2 this year?

October 28th, 2012 at 5:21 pm

If Nos. 3 and 4 had to suffer, it just goes to show how good Nos. 1 and 2 have been.

I guess now that Fed is showing his decline more and more and Rafa is sidelined more and more by injuries, then the long-suffering guys will no longer be suffering. However, can we assume that tennis is moving into a weak era?

October 28th, 2012 at 5:44 pm

I read the comments hastily, so I may have missed some interesting posts.

First, about Paris. When I saw the draw I was certain Fed will not play. It was probably to soon, by the organisers took no chances.

About the race for number 1 next year. You never know. I am absolutely certain that all the top four will work like crazy before the AO. Djokovic will improve his serve, Fed too, Rafa – I think he reserves us some surprises. For Murray, I believe he has to change his attitude on the court. He has so much power — he should try to use it on regular bases.

After that, it is all a question of draw, of biorhythm, of luck. They are all there, capable to win on any given day. I just hope Nole will be the one with the trophies in the end.

October 28th, 2012 at 6:14 pm

… but the organisers…

October 28th, 2012 at 6:14 pm

They need to fire that bongo guy at Bercy.

October 28th, 2012 at 6:23 pm

Although Fed is declining, he still is right at the top as he won a slam this year, so he cannot be discounted; my guess is that Rafa will be on point next year, too; then we have Nole and Murray who are also in great form, possibly set to take#1 and 2; plus now we seem to have Delpo stepping up; not to mention players like Berdych and Tsonga, whom we always knew had great potential, and who are playing well; and Ferrer been more consistent this year than he’s been in a number of years. And that’s just the top 8!

We still have a number of other strong players like Tipsy, Gasquet (who’s now top ten in the race), Raonic, Isner, Dolgo, Nico, Monaco, Nishikori, Cilic, and Haas. All these players have had good runs of late, which bodes well for next year. I think there are some promising youngsters, too, in Goffin, Paire, Klizan, Bellucci, Dimitrov and Tomic.

Lots to look forward to!

October 28th, 2012 at 6:30 pm

Alok,
It also shows how good #3&#4 were to hung with GOAT and one of best player ever and wait for there chance, don’t forget they both have double digit wins against GOAT and one has positive score which is likely to remain and probably increase the other one might end up with positive score but I don’t think so, depends how long GOAT is going to stay on tour and how often they will have a chance to meet, of course I am talking, Andy and Nole or NolAndy as some good posters like to call them.
Why would we think about week era with Rafa, Nole, Andy at their best years and Delpo getting very close to his best which is scary best, Raonic getting there hopefully, Berdych, Tsonga, Nishikori etc. On the oposite, it is great era to get ready for. Put your seatbelts on :)

October 28th, 2012 at 6:36 pm

“weak” should say

October 28th, 2012 at 6:38 pm

Ooopppppssss,

jane, you already said it. To quick for me.

October 28th, 2012 at 6:40 pm

a weak era is where only one player dominates.

October 28th, 2012 at 6:41 pm

@ jane

Spot on.

October 28th, 2012 at 6:52 pm

“a weak era is where only one player dominates.”

Uh?

October 28th, 2012 at 7:04 pm

I forgot to mention other candidates to the top position, because I don’t really see somebody new emerging. The top simply looks to… dense.

The usual suspects are here, but it is very difficult to see them winning against three of the top four. Berdych was the closest to do that feat, but he failed, eventually. Let’s also mention that Federer and Djokovic played under their actual level. An exception could be JMDP, but he will not only have to be at his top, but to improve his game.

No, I think the surprise will be the changes in the style of play of the top four, and the beginning of a new era in tennis: more aggression, more volleying, more flat hitting.

October 28th, 2012 at 7:05 pm

Hey Wog Boy, like I said at 5:44 pm, it will be a weak era because Fed is declining and Rafa’s knees are questionable. If Fed and Rafa cannot beat Djokovic and Murray on a consistent basis, then it will only be two players at the top with very little competition to stop them. To me that’s somewhat of a weak era. I consider a strong era where all of them are beating each other in slams and MS tournaments.

@volley, then that will be 2011?

I’m hoping JMDP will step it up and make the field more competitive. Tsonga and T-Berd are spoilers, because they are very inconsistent. also, they are getting up there in years.

October 28th, 2012 at 7:17 pm

I have always felt that Nadal has brought a revolution (although it is always the same, just like the perennial alternation of the aesthetics of poiesis and mimesis in poetry) in the middle on the last decade: after years of dominance of attacking tennis (FO excepted) that Roger Federer embodied in its ultimate form, Rafa showed that you can rely not on tennis virtuosity, but on will, strength, speed, focus and on defence. The duels of Rafa vs Fed always reminded me, in a twisted way, of the “Rumble in the Jungle”, where Ali parried all, defended using the ropes, to eventually knock out Foreman, the ultimate attacker.

But the tide has turned in the last two years. After the thesis and the antithesis, it is time for a new concept: although Rafa is a vicious counter puncher, the new paradigm is pure aggression. As we have seen in the Rafole matches, or in Shanghai more recently, this aggression starts from the return. It is not any more Foreman vs Ali, it is more Calzaghe vs Atkins: the attacker doesn’t take risks, it is ready to launch one punch more, and he is also able to wait for an opening.

October 28th, 2012 at 7:30 pm

@alok, then that will be 2011?

an era is more than a year, so no.

October 28th, 2012 at 7:39 pm

Rafa said it after the USO, last year: Novak was playing one more ball. But Rafa too is a specialist of the “one more ball”. I believed intermittently that you couldn’t win a point against him. But that ball wasn’t the same: it wasn’t the defensive, unexpected get that dazzled Rafa, it was Novak’s ability to attack once more, to displace the defender completely. But you can’t play that way forever. You have to finish the points, and when displaced, defenders always have one last weapon: the slice. Against the slice, you have to volley. It was clear in the semi of Indian Wells. For the first time I saw Federer playing that one ball more a whole match, and with his big forehand and excellent volleying, he didn’t allow rallies to be reset.

October 28th, 2012 at 7:42 pm

mat4,

That was good one:) I liked and watched boxing in 70s and 80s but not since then.
I have to tell you “Thriller in Manila” is better than “Rumble in the jungle” much better, I still think Smokin’ Joe should win that one, it was “closest expirience to death” as Ali described it. I can watch it over and over again same as I cannot watch when Foreman destroyed Smokin’ Joe, it was sad to watch, really sad for me particulay because I liked the bloke, good decent battler not a big moth like Ali, but Ali was the best…. that doesn’t make me like him.

October 28th, 2012 at 7:48 pm

WB:

Did you know that he fought almost blind in the last rounds? When he died, there was a documentary about him when he revealed that.

I couldn’t resist so I rewatched the whole match. It was the story of Rocky but without a happy ending.

October 28th, 2012 at 7:54 pm

But you’re right about the Foreman Fraser bout. The referee shouldn’t have let it last after the second knock down. It was really ugly after that.

October 28th, 2012 at 7:56 pm

Finally, I liked them all, for their courage, their strength, their determination. I liked Hagler too. The one I didn’t like was Roy Jones jr, because he didn’t know absolutely nothing about boxing — he was just a freaking beast, so fast, but so fast. I watched him against Mike McCallum, who was a fine technician in the ring, and it was a good match. I was very glad when Calzaghe beat him, showing that speed does not always kill.

October 28th, 2012 at 8:01 pm

“I consider a strong era where all of them are beating each other in slams and MS tournaments.”

Which is exactly how it has been between 2008 – 2012, wherein pretty much all the top 4 trading titles and places, and with some shifting beginning in 2007. Prior to the the 2008-12 period, i.e., from 2004-07, it was mainly 2 guys dominating all of the masters and slams.

I think it’s likely to remain how it’s been in the last few years, with the top 4 and a number of dark horses winning the big titles for the next year or 2 anyhow.

While Rafa’s been out with his knees, it’s not the first time, and he’s only 26. He missed a good chunk in 2009, but he came back in 2010 and won 3 slams. He’ll be back and in good form, or at least that’d be my prediction. I also suspect Fed’ll be in the mix for another year or 2, just like Connors and Agassi played into their 30s.

In fact, as someone, I think trufan, pointed out recently, this is a very “mature” top ten. And at the FO this year, there were more 30 (and older) players in the draw than ever before. Players seem to be playing – and playing well – for a longer period now, perhaps due to technological shifts in equipment etc.?

October 28th, 2012 at 8:03 pm

You cannot “choose” what erea you play in. It does not make you necessarily better or worse. You still have to play, and win. One could say also Rafa played in a weak era. Outside of Fed, he dominated.this whole era This whole era thing is moot imo.

October 28th, 2012 at 8:16 pm

mat4,

I have seen that documentary, back in run down gym in a slum in Philadelphia where he started from.
Do you know that he refused to fight for a title when Ali was in prison, out of respect for Ali, and he also wrote letter to President Nixon asking him to let Ali out of jail and yet Big Mouth Ali called him all those names as thank you.

October 28th, 2012 at 8:22 pm

@jane:

I agree. Writing off Rafa is a bit premature. Ditto for Fed, especially on grass.

But the surfaces could change: a lower bounce and the game, and the rankings, could shift easily in favour of more aggressive players.

In 1979, everybody thought Connors was finished. In 1994, everybody thought Agassi will never won a slam again. It’s not over until it’s over.

October 28th, 2012 at 8:23 pm

Some have advanced a few criteria for a strong/weak era. It is perhaps better to judge by the players that played.

I liked Connors very much, Sampras, Safin, Mecir also, but I don’t think that the present level of professionalism existed then.

Jane mentioned the age of the players among the top ten. It becomes clear that you can’t be a member of the top ten having a single weakness, and with the quantity of excellent players from the 11th to the 40th rank, you have to mature and be consistent weak in week out to achieve good results.

So I have no doubts, whatsoever, that it is an exceptionally strong era since 2007, at least, and it was a strong era before.

You can’t just dismiss a certain period because an outstanding player rose above the others.

October 28th, 2012 at 8:32 pm

@WB:

We should perhaps continue this chat about boxing on tp, where Scoop is a connoisseur.

Anyway, I don’t think Ali really meant it. I am sure, if he knew the effects it would have in the match, he would have shut up, for once.

October 28th, 2012 at 8:35 pm

Anyway, I didn’t finish my posts about the new playing style. Guess I will leave it for another time.

October 28th, 2012 at 8:38 pm

Who said anything about writing off Fed or Rafa?I merely pointed out that they will be less competitive than in previous years, which is why Djoker and Murray will win more. Anyone who’s objective can see what’s happening now.

Yes, Rafa by numerical age is only 26. But by tennis years, he’s much older, having been on the tour since he’s been 14, which is 12 years as a pro. He turned pro in 2001. Fed turned pro 1998. That’s why I claim that they’re about close in years, etc. Others should keep this in mind when they compare Nadal and Djokovic, especially with injuries because who knows the way djokovic plays similar to Rafa what will happen in the future?.

BTW, those 30+ players that are playing well are from Fed’s era, which just goes to show how much better Fed was above his peers. It’s nothing related to equipment, which has come about since we left wooden rackets and those strings behind.

Anyway, this seems to be turning towards another era argument, and I’m not up to that agagoing to go there again. Have fun all. I’m out.

October 28th, 2012 at 8:53 pm

Mat4,

Well said @ 8:32.

Nole will create his own greatness over his career. And be prepared for “oh Fed is retired or old” or “Rafa is injured now but…”.
;)

October 28th, 2012 at 8:54 pm

Ooops, my last sentence should read, … and I’m not up to going there again.

October 28th, 2012 at 8:56 pm

@skeezer, “Nole will create his own greatness over his career. And be prepared for “oh Fed is retired or old” or “Rafa is injured now but…”.
;)”

Is that meant for me because I mentioned Fed is in decline and rafa is injured?

October 28th, 2012 at 8:58 pm

>Outside of Fed, he dominated.this whole era

That still makes 2 who dominated. see the difference?

>This whole era thing is moot

lol, i’m sure you’d like it to be but I disagree.

October 28th, 2012 at 8:59 pm

@Alok,

No. Just a response to Mat4. We’re good.

@volley

Short one liners don’t explain your position, lol

October 28th, 2012 at 9:15 pm

mat4,

I am not a blog person, though I read other blogs when somebody points out something on the other blog like you did. I liked that one, TP, nicely written and there is moderation;)

October 28th, 2012 at 9:28 pm

The longevity of current top tenners is probably due to many issues, but even Sampras has commented on the changes since he played: strings, racquets, and even physio & training techniques have advanced, which, imo, could be a factor in the increasing longevity of the careers of players.

Rafa turned pro 3 years after Fed; Nole turned pro 2 years after Rafa, so Nole is very close to Rafa in that regard. But yes, Rafa has for sure 2 more years mileage, and he was winning right away at the FO. He’s had extended leaves for injury (you could probably count 1 year altogether?) so that will probably help to sustain him longer. Rafa & team have been smart in this regard; i.e., when he has needed the time to recovery, he’s taken it and it seems he hasn’t rushed typically.

October 28th, 2012 at 9:37 pm

mat4,

Thanks, I got it now…sorry I am little bit slow, comes with ages though I was never too fast in that department.
I will check now what Brad Gilbert has to say about boxing and tennis:)

October 28th, 2012 at 9:56 pm

@Skeez:

Why was I certain you wouldn’t comment that great post I wrote at 7:30 about… Rafa?

Anyway, I’d rather Nole win 18 slams in an extra weak era, than 5 in a super strong era. Slams are slams (But, are two ugly blondes better than a pretty brunette? Blondes are blonde, after all.)

@WB:

Just hope that Dan won’t write about the Dark Prince soon…

October 28th, 2012 at 10:04 pm

@jane:

There could be others things, too: PED, steroids, HGH…

October 28th, 2012 at 10:05 pm

Jane,

Rafa turned pro @15, so he has more mileage than the avg pro at this point no? Longetivity starts, when
you start, part of the equation. He has played professional tennis for 10 year already.

Additionally, in Feds supposed “weak era” period(04-07), both Nole and Rafa were professional tennis players from 04-07, no?
(Rafa turned pro in 2001, Nole in 2003. )

October 28th, 2012 at 10:06 pm

@mat4

Because it wasn’T as great as your 8:32 post. ;)

October 28th, 2012 at 10:12 pm

I have just discovered that if I cut my fingernails more I can actually spell and type better on my Ipad, why is that?

October 28th, 2012 at 10:15 pm

skeezer, not sure I follow your 10:06 post to me, but I’ll try to break it down:

1. “(Rafa turned pro in 2001, Nole in 2003. )”

I wrote the same thing in my 9:37 post; my point was that Nole is actually very close to Rafa’s era, as they turned pro only 2 years apart, thus their mileage is not that drastically different. Indeed Fed turned pro 3 years before Rafa, whereas Nole turned pro only 2 years after Rafa. I made this distinction in response to Alok’s comment at 8:53, as follows:

“[Rafa] turned pro in 2001. Fed turned pro 1998. That’s why I claim that they’re about close in years, etc. Others should keep this in mind when they compare Nadal and Djokovic, especially with injuries because who knows the way djokovic plays similar to Rafa what will happen in the future?.”

——————————————————
2. “Additionally, in Feds supposed “weak era” period(04-07), both Nole and Rafa were professional tennis players from 04-07, no?”

Firstly, if you look through my posts on this thread, I didn’t say it was “a weak era” when Fedal were dominating in 04-07. Again, I was simply responding to Alok’s earlier 7:17 post where she said:

“If Fed and Rafa cannot beat Djokovic and Murray on a consistent basis, then it will only be two players at the top with very little competition to stop them. To me that’s somewhat of a weak era. I consider a strong era where all of them are beating each other in slams and MS tournaments.”

I said that her description of a strong era – “where all of them are beating each other in slams and MS tournaments” – basically corresponds with the years of 2008-present, more so than 2004-07. Indeed, I forecasted that it’ll probably continue that way going forward. I don’t see Fed or Rafa as being out of contention, and in fact pointed out that the top ten age-range is higher than normal now. Thus, I don’t think we’re headed into a “weak era”.

October 28th, 2012 at 11:28 pm

jane @ 6.30 agree, “spot on” as DA wrote.
Wog boy @6.36, excellent post, but ’tis “Andole” to be sure…..;)

October 29th, 2012 at 2:29 am

How come no one talking about Paris yet? Simon and Baghdatis must have breathed a sigh of relief- if they can get past each other, Hanescu is a slight downgrade from the original opponent.
This may be the most lopsided draw I’ve seen. There’s Murray and Berdych in one half, and everyone else in the other: Tsonga, Del Potro, Ferrer, Raonic, Isner and Nole.

With this talk of eras (this topic will probably get as old as the Rafa/Fed/GOAT argument, but for now its fresher), Ferrero’s retirement gives us a chance to rethink Fed’s generation. There was a brilliant time, I think 2003, when Ferrero was #1, but the year end championships would decide it between Ferrero, Agassi, Roddick and Federer.
This was a brilliant moment in tennis. Roddick was considered a superstar coming into his own, Agassi was the ageless wonder, and Ferrero and Federer were these talented pretenders to the throne. Right behind them, the vaguard of the New Balls Generation: Hewitt and Safin. Safin had only manhandled Sampras in the USO Finals when Sampras had just broken the record for Wimbledon championships. Then there was Guga, and Haas. Federer was not even one of the featured men in the NBG marketing campaign.
Now we know Fed ran roughshod over that Masters Final and that generation. But at the time, MAN, that seemed like a class cohort. Some terrible luck in terms of injuries hit many of those guys, but more importantly, Federer took tennis to a new level. Roddick was in HOW many grand slam finals? How many Slams would he have had he not run into Federer?
Then you have other early Fed rivals like Nalbandian and Davydenko who somehow always were threatening to Rafa (as Roddick was for a long time to Nole).

So, let’s say Djokovic is superior to Roddick. Murray has yet to have a career to match many of those other NBG stars, who left so much on the table. If you fill out the top ten now, beyond the big four, there’s not too much pedigree. So today you have one great star, in Djokovic, one potential star in Murray, and two fading superstars.
Can’t really say this is a better generation in terms of slam threats than Federer’s, though the level of Nole and Murray alone may be higher.

October 29th, 2012 at 3:23 pm

How bout if we all just agree that Sampras faced a historically weak era in the context of 70’s to present. I mean, Pioline? Henman? Rusedski? In no other era does Yevgeny Kafelnikov win two grand slams.

October 29th, 2012 at 3:27 pm

@jane, I’m a he, NOT a she.

October 29th, 2012 at 10:19 pm

Jane your post of 9:37 pm was a repeat of my 8:53 pm post, and @11:28pm is again much of the same, IMO.

I said I was done with the topic, but seeing that you mentioned me in your 11:53 pm post, I feel that I should at least apprise you of those facts.

October 29th, 2012 at 10:36 pm

“@jane, I’m a he, NOT a she.”

Oops, my apologies.

October 29th, 2012 at 11:43 pm

RF finally put his foot down after getting the shaft in yet another unfavorable draw. can’t say that i blame him. atp needs to get its act together and revise the draw selection “process”. geesh.

October 30th, 2012 at 9:25 am

the Federer weak era thing is really annoying and ignorant, it staggers me

do people need to reminded Fed has beaten Agassi, Sampras, Kafelnikov, Krajicek, Ivanisevic, Chang in his career.. as well as the best of today

he has played 6 US Open finals against 6 different opponents, 7 Masters Cup finals against 7 different opponents

want to know some of Fed’s opponents in his US Open QUARTER FINALS – Agassi, Nalbandian, Blake, Roddick, Soderling, Tsonga, Berdych

October 30th, 2012 at 9:26 am

The people who claim that Federer played in a weak era are biased against Federer. That is the only explanation I can think of because during his time, he has played and beaten such prominent names as mentioned above by mike. Add to that, he has won majors and been ranked number one during the time when the likes of Djokovic, Nadal and Murray are playing in their prime years. So mike, don’t get irritated at people who call it a weak period in tennis. Just be happy that you can think more clearly and more reasonably than those people. It’s not their fault. They were born that way.

October 30th, 2012 at 9:39 am

>>do people need to reminded Fed has beaten Sampras, Kafelnikov, Krajicek, Ivanisevic, Chang in his career<<

lol, seriously? all those players were well past their prime , except Agassi. you must have your tongue planted in your cheek.

October 30th, 2012 at 10:09 am

^how about Safin, Hewitt, Guga, Roddick, all of which won Slams. (Feds era)

Look in the mirror, at your cheek.

October 30th, 2012 at 10:41 am

volley, those people you mentioned were not really past their prime when Federer started beating them.

Sampras was 30 when he lost to Federer in 2001 but he continued to play well beating Agassi at the QF in the same year and then winning the US Open in 2002 beating Agassi again as well as Tommy Haas and Andy Roddick along the way. Sampras was not a lame old dog when Federer beat him in the only ATP match they ever played.

Kafelnikov retired at the age of 30 or 31. Federer has beaten him before he got to that age.

Krajicek, Ivanesevic and Chang were not even really that good to dignify any explanation as to why Federer can beat them at any age.

On the other hand, Federer at an age days shy of 31 won Wimbledon beating players like Djokovic who was the number one player in his prime years, and Murray, also in his prime and with the homecourt advantage.

October 30th, 2012 at 11:13 am

I guess if Fed didn’t have Simon in his part of the Paris draw he would have played! #justsaying

October 30th, 2012 at 11:21 am

In the process of looking up references for my post, I just realized something that made me very happy. That although Federer and Sampras share the record for the most Wimbledon titles, Federer has beaten him in their only match in Wimbledon and he did it when Sampras was the defending champion. Hurray to my man!

October 30th, 2012 at 11:21 am

>>how about Safin, Hewitt, Guga, Roddick

ok, let’s look at them:

Marat Safin –
his peak was 2000. After his unexpected AO win in 2005, he declined rapidly only making 3 ATP 250 finals afterwards.

Lleyton Hewitt –
like Safin he was a spent force after reaching the AO final in 2005. He has only won 4 more ATP 250 titles and reached 3 ATP 250 finals since.

Gustavo Kuerten –
He peaked in 2001 and he had injury issues from 2002-05. he only won 4 more titles – all ATP 250- and was in 1 Master final in 2003.

the only one on your list who was still going strong during Feds era was Roddick, and Roger owned him with a 21-3 h2h.

got any more names to build a stronger case?

October 30th, 2012 at 11:28 am

btw, I’m not deliberately trying to upset Fed fans. i think it’s a legitimate debate to have. this can be discussed intelligently if emotions don’t get in the way. i’m open to be convinced otherwise.

October 30th, 2012 at 11:32 am

Ok,

Lets look at it. Safin still won a Slam during Feds so called “peak years”. So did Guga, Roddick, Hewitt.

I mean what is your point? Compared to what? Rafa and Fed in this current era own most of the Slams??

October 30th, 2012 at 11:38 am

Roger has so many peak years which have encompassed (and still going on) the times of many excellent players. Roger made them all look ordinary. He dominated them so much which gave the illusion that they were not great players. Take away Roger and think how many slams Roddick would have won. Many others would also have added more to their majors collection. Even Sampras would have had 8 Wimbledon titles. But Roger happened and he is that good. Give him a strong tennis era and he will make it look weak.

October 30th, 2012 at 11:48 am

Well said Polo.

October 30th, 2012 at 11:52 am

Guga won his last slam in 2001. Hewitt won his last slam in 2002 and reached his last GS final in 2005. Safin only reached one slam final between 2002-05. Fed only met Guga 3 times.

what period do you consider the “peak years” to be? surely not before 2003?

my point is these 3 guys were not showing up in the tail end of slams or even the Masters with anything like the consistency of top players from 2007/8 onwards.

October 30th, 2012 at 12:15 pm

Guga did not win another slam after 2001, Hewitt neither after 2002. They very well could have but they could not anymore. Do you know why?

October 30th, 2012 at 12:30 pm

polo, i’m all ears.

October 30th, 2012 at 12:32 pm

I know you are. What is important is what is in between them.

October 30th, 2012 at 12:40 pm

ah, very witty. so you have no point or case to make?

October 30th, 2012 at 1:05 pm

volley, I have already done that, a couple of times just a few moments ago. Unfortunately but not unexpectedly, you failed to comprehend my arguments. Which just proved my other point.

October 30th, 2012 at 2:02 pm

no you didn’t really. Guga and Fed played only 3 times, and only once at a slam – RG 2004. Hewitt was stopped by RF 5 times at slams between 2004 (3 times) & 2005 (2 times). Hewitt faded after that and they didn’t meet at any slam in 2006 or 2007. Safin only met Fed twice in slams between 2003-06.

some people consider RF’s absolute peak years as 2005 -07. i’ll give you Hewitt and Roddick but not the others mentioned above.

October 30th, 2012 at 2:31 pm

Interestingly, you got lost in your own argument. Now go and argue with your own self.

October 30th, 2012 at 2:49 pm

it doesn’t surprise me in the slightest that you’d say that. people get too emotional and can’t discuss the subject rationally. haven’t met one fan yet who can.

October 30th, 2012 at 2:56 pm

@volley

You are trying to provoke emotion. You’re questions have been answered, you just won’t accept it

“….. you must have your tongue planted in your cheek.”

October 30th, 2012 at 3:11 pm

Weak era argument:I read comments on this blog about this thousand times…I personally think that Feds era was slightly weaker then todays area (stronger then Sampras era ) but for one minute I ‘m not suggestin that somehow he is not greatest player ever-because in one of the strongest eras (right know and last 5 years ) he was number one and winning a slams.And also I want to ad that Roddick was great player but unlucky having a Fed around.If Fed was playing in this era from begining maybe he would have 2 slams less (just maybe,I said ) but he would still be better then other big tree.Right?So, as much I support Novak, I’ll take hat off to Fed and Nadal anytime because Novak is still long way from those too…

October 30th, 2012 at 3:31 pm

Courbon even though Rafa has significantly more slams than Nole,i still cant help been a little envious of Nole,as Nole has more of an even distribution of slams,i would gladly swap a couple of Rafas FOs for a couple of slams on HCs,when Nole wins the FO(which im sure he will before too long),he will be regarded as an all court player,where as Rafa is only regarded as a CC player ,due to most of his slams been at the FO,dont get me wrong im delighted Rafa has what he has,but because of the skewed and bias towards clay,i just feel sometimes his legacy doesnt always get the credit it deserves.

October 30th, 2012 at 3:50 pm

I think you are wrong there-Borg is well rememberd and has similair record to Nadal (ok, 5 Wimbledons but not US Open and AO )…I would anytime swap 11GS wins for 5GS wins.If you read what real tennis pros think about Nadal (and players, like Novak and Murray )its clear that he is considered like one of the greates tennis players.I think Anti Nadal loby on this blog got to your head.Well thats at least what I think…

October 30th, 2012 at 4:15 pm

@ volley

“an era is more than a year”

How many years according to you? A clear definition of an era and the time period involved help to know where you are coming from. Are you saying that domination by one player within a year( winning streaks, multiple major wins like in 2010 and 2011 etc.) can not be due to weak competition or other factors but domination over a longer period must necessarily be only due to weak competition.

“a weak era is where only one player dominates.”

How much and what kind of a single-player domination is sufficient for you to come to that conclusion? Is it impossible for anyone to be better than the rest of the field for more than a year unless the competition is weak? What about weak competition based on surface domination e.g. Rafa on clay or the hard court domination by Novak in 2011 and 2012? Even if four players “dominate”, the rest of the field can still be very weak and, if one player dominates, the rest of the field can still be deep and competitive against each other. Ideally, in a strong period, every tournament should have a different winner and all players on the tour should have a points tally similar, if not identical, to each other. Since that ideal is not easy to achieve, periods of domination are not surprising as some players are better than others especially in their prime. There is no way of knowing how Roger would have performed now if he were in his physical prime. The fact that an old battle-weary player was able to regain the top rank in a supposedly strong period speaks volumes…..

Oh wait, since it was Roger who did it, it must be due to weak competition.

October 30th, 2012 at 4:26 pm

alison. Why do you say “Nole has more of an even distribution of slams”? He has 3 AO’s, 1 Wimbledon and 1 USO. Rafa has 7 FO’s, 2 Wimbledon, 1 AO and 1 USO. You are probably saying he is top heavy with FO’s but that’s OK with me. Remember he has got the Career Golden Slam which consists of all 4 slams plus the Olympic Gold Medal. How many players have achieved that feat? Only 3 players, Steffi Graf, Agassi and Rafa. #BeHappy

October 30th, 2012 at 4:29 pm

You have a point about the anti Nadal loby,unfortunatly sometimes you hear something that much you start believing its true,im glad he has what he has,where he goes from here to be honest i dont really know,my expectations only go as far as seeing him actually start playing again,Novak seems to be in his prime,and is only getting started,i have no idea as to how many slams he will go on to win,but hes in the form of his life so who knows?

October 30th, 2012 at 4:35 pm

^sorry post for Courbon^.

October 30th, 2012 at 4:37 pm

Courbon by the way congrats to your favorite on regaining the number 1 ranking,much deserved,as hes been the best player this year.

October 30th, 2012 at 4:39 pm

I know what you mean but who knows?Nole may get injured and is finished.I would not look that far.You are right,lets just wait to see him play.I think this long break makes any nadal fan uncomfortable.I would also if Nole had similair situation.And Giles is right.Be happy!Ah, that British melancholy…

October 30th, 2012 at 4:43 pm

Ha ha when you try to argue with two men,your on a hiding to nothing,ok fair enough glass half full instead of half empty.

October 30th, 2012 at 5:08 pm

@ skeezer, >>.. you must have your tongue planted in your cheek.

perhaps you don’t know the expression? to have suggested that Sampras, Kafelnikov, Krajicek, Ivanisevic, Chang were serious rivals to Federer I assumed mike was being less than serious, thus ‘tongue in cheek’. imo that’s not really emotive.

>>How many years according to you?

More than one, several.

>>Ideally, in a strong period, every tournament should have a different winner

yes, ideally. but everyone knows the statistics for who has won the major share of slams and masters over the last 5 years, only a handful, and the same few opponents kept turning up in most of the finals. the incredible consistency overshadows the earlier era.

from 2003-2006 the top 4 changed each year. some top players were past their prime, some got injured and some had only just begun to make their mark. it doesn’t detract from Fed’s achievements, it was just the situation at that time.

October 30th, 2012 at 5:12 pm

LOL! volley getting his behind kicked by one and all!

maybe Brando will post a sympathy post supporting. after all, volley went to the other thread and begged for Brando to come and help him! [ he even tried to support Brando’s lie!]

nadal won 98% matches on clay :) remember that people! Brando said it. it must be true! :)

October 30th, 2012 at 5:44 pm

Federer’s era was so weak that a guy who he dominated 21 and 3, retired with a winning H2H against the best player of this strong era : Mr. Djokovic!

Yes! definitely a strong era!

October 30th, 2012 at 5:46 pm

Federer’s era was weak? You can make the same argument for Borg’s era when he won his 11 slams!

Guess what, Borg retired at the slightest hint of a challenge from a new comer in mcenroe.

Contrast that with Federer, who on the other hand, faced the tough times and regained the no.1 ranking from not just the 1st challenger, but also from the 2nd challenger.

Imagine how great Borg would have been if he regained his wimbledon crown from mcenroe and 3 years down the line, regain the no.1 ranking from the next generation guy lendl!

That is exactly what Federer did. Going by volley’s absolutely d$%k-head logic, lendl who won 8 slams in an era which he shared with wilander, becker and edberg is a greater player than Borg!

OK! no one who has followed tennis and seen borg play will accept that lendl is a greater player than borg because he won his slams in a so-called tougher era!

October 30th, 2012 at 5:56 pm

#don’tfeethetroll

October 30th, 2012 at 5:59 pm

volley,

That wasn’t trolling.

You are just strarting to realize your ERA argument is “weak”

Responding wth hashtags?

#WhosBad

October 30th, 2012 at 6:07 pm

question :

#WhosBad

answer :

#volley
#Giles

October 30th, 2012 at 6:15 pm

skeezer

i understand you don’t have a counter argument, that’s okay.

(and MJ quotes? really?)

what the TJ creature has posted so far on this site definitely qualifies as troll-like behaviour. i never respond to them.

October 30th, 2012 at 6:23 pm

Volley

There is nothing more to counter. You’re “volley” moniker has been defeated by a Rafa/Fed/Nole/Murray screamer passin shot.
Seriously, this subject has been discussed sometime ago, and the weak era argument has been officially labeled debunked. You have come on the scene a little late.

You never answered my question, what are u comparing Fed’s weak era too? What is the foundation based on with all tennis players and whom has a better “era” record? Keep in mind Fed has played in multiple era’s and has won slams in all of them.

October 30th, 2012 at 7:03 pm

skeezer, lol, debunked by whom? according to your bias, it’s settled. i can view it more objectively than a dedicated fan. the debate continues, even among so-called experts. it’s only a debate and a difference of opinion -no need to take it personally.

>>what are u comparing Fed’s weak era too?

i don’t understand you question. i wasn’t comparing it to anything. imo, there have been other weak eras such as 96-99.

btw, i’m willing to bet i’ve been around longer than you.

October 30th, 2012 at 7:32 pm

mem morphs to Giles who morphs to volley!

#federer_hatred_unlimited

October 30th, 2012 at 8:35 pm

TJ = Rafael = alok.

#birdsofafeather

October 30th, 2012 at 8:49 pm

“i don’t understand you question. i wasn’t comparing it to anything. imo, there have been other weak eras such as 96-99.”

This is your problem, there is no basis to your assumption. And no, u have not been around longer than me, furthermore, you don’tnowmy tennis credentials, another “assumption”.

October 30th, 2012 at 9:56 pm

@volley

MJ? Really?

Why not, another GOAT, want to debate him?

October 30th, 2012 at 9:57 pm

Unfortunately TJ has a serious complex problem – he/she/it wants to be the only voice on this forum. Everybody else should just roll over and die and just listen to the cr@p dished out by him/her/it. Strangely enough I once owned a dog named TJ whose incessant barking was getting on my nerves so consequently had to get rid! #BarkingDogs

October 31st, 2012 at 4:40 am

@skeezer

>>u have not been around longer than me

ok, what’s the first year you got into tennis? if you worship MJ, i’m betting i’ve got a head start on you by more than a few years.

>>another GOAT, want to debate him?

no offence but you haven’t shown any aptitude for debate so far, just snarky comments. it’s all good, sometimes a topic is too incendiary to keep a level-head over.

October 31st, 2012 at 6:38 am

” it doesn’t detract from Fed’s achievements, it was just the situation at that time. ”

Had you said it at the outset, the arguments would have been less heated. A player can not chose his competition. Federer started in 1998 and struggled for some time. He had huge losing H2H against several players which he later turned around. His peak years were from 2004 to 2007 which is not surprising as he was in his mid-twenties and that is the age in which most players produce their best results. His decline was not surprising at all and it coincided with the rise of other players who were in their prime or started approaching their prime. I think Federer has done well to regain the number one rank twice after that dominant phase. As rogerafa notes, his recent achievements are indicative of how he would have done even in this period if he were in his physical prime. The strong or weak era argument becomes somewhat insignificant in this case.

October 31st, 2012 at 9:34 am

Volley

What debate?

“You never answered my question, what are u comparing Fed’s weak era too? What is the foundation based on with all tennis players and whom has a better “era” record? Keep in mind Fed has played in multiple era’s and has won slams in all of them.,

October 31st, 2012 at 10:18 am

@nilam >>Had you said it at the outset, the arguments would have been less heated

you’re right. perhaps i should have. anyway, nice to get a reasoned response.

@skeezer, an obvious era to ‘compare’ is the latter 2000s or the mid 80s. i never made an argument about whom had a better era record. I think my argument is quite clear. let’s just agree to disagree.

October 31st, 2012 at 10:34 am