PDA

View Full Version : Will Federer lose #1 this year?


JuliusWinto
05-22-2010, 07:00 PM
Will Federer lose the number 1 ranking sometime this year? I know he will probably at least make the semis of Roland Garros, but what do you think will happen after Wimbledon? Before the U.S. Open? After the U.S. Open? At the year end Masters?

vortex1
05-22-2010, 07:02 PM
He will lose #1 after Wimbledon and possibly regain it after USO.

FedererUberAlles
05-22-2010, 07:12 PM
it's highly likely, Nadal's playing well, and Federer's rounding out his career

djokovicgonzalez2010
05-22-2010, 07:13 PM
Probably, unless Fed decides to start caring about events that aren't Slams

TheLoneWolf
05-22-2010, 07:13 PM
If Fed doesn't reach RG SF and Nadal wins it, Nadal regains #1. Unlikely, but possible. Although given Fed's YTD statistics (19/6) it is not too far fetched.

When Wimbledon comes around it all depends on Rafa really. Fed has all to defend and Rafa has nothing to defend, so it's going to be a way for Rafa to gain a lot of free points.

JuliusWinto
05-22-2010, 07:16 PM
Yeah, I think Federer definitely loses it after Wimbledon, and maybe for the rest of the year.

cork_screw
05-22-2010, 07:18 PM
Have you seen the draw? If he doesn't it would be a miracle. If nadal had to play every top ten player and then play federer in the finals, he would still win. He's that good on the surface. I don't know why anyone ever doubted him. I saw a poll on atpworldtennis.com where people chimed in how many clay court titles he would win this year and the overwhelming majority chose 2, that was because he was complaining about his knees and when I saw that I just laughed to myself because even on bad knees this guy just hits with so much spin aggression and can cover some ground. I don't see him not dominating clay until he gets to be around 27 yrs old. Nobody comes close to what he does on clay.

JuliusWinto
05-22-2010, 07:20 PM
For those answering no, I'm pretty sure that I will be laughing all the way to the bank. Use your reasoning skills, everyone. This doesn't mean he won't finish number 1, but he will very likely lose it at some point.

davey25
05-22-2010, 07:21 PM
What I expect to happen is Nadal to win Roland Garros and Federer to be runner up. Then for Federer to win Halle and Nadal to either win or be runner up at Queens. I am not sure what has to happen at Wimbledon for Nadal to take #1 after that then, but I am pretty sure even if Federer wins there that Nadal can be #1 with some kind of good result.

OKUSA
05-22-2010, 07:30 PM
For those answering no, I'm pretty sure that I will be laughing all the way to the bank. Use your reasoning skills, everyone. This doesn't mean he won't finish number 1, but he will very likely lose it at some point.

my reasoning is that federer always comes through at grand slams, what is it 23 straight semis now? seriously, why is this year the year? he already showed us he can compete with nadal on clay and pretty much beat the next best clay courter atm in gulbis or ferrer (and don't say verdasco, please).

federer will no doubt in my mind get to the finals, if he beats nadal then wimbledon is a breeze, if he doesn't then i have my faith that he will defend wimbledon. and without del po at the USO, only davydenko can beat him and we all know how good he is in slams against roger

my only worries is that he might take off a lot of months after the USO and he could lose it there after he hits 300 weeks

Carsomyr
05-22-2010, 07:31 PM
Extremely likely; his body needs more rest than it did a few years ago to be in peak condition for the most important tournaments of the year, which is why his motivation has been absent. While it's entirely possible that he'll win another major this year, I don't expect him to finish #1 in the world.

abraxas21
05-22-2010, 09:49 PM
He will definitely lose it after Wimby.

I'm not sure if he'll regain it before the year ends.

norbac
05-22-2010, 09:51 PM
I'm thinking Nadal, if healthy, takes it after Wimbledon.

Puredrivetennis
05-22-2010, 11:26 PM
yes.i dont, however think it will be the last time we seem there.

Rhino
05-23-2010, 12:02 AM
I'd be very surprised if he's still #1 after Wimbledon but he could easily regain it before the WTF.

Sentinel
05-23-2010, 12:12 AM
Most likely Wimbledon.

gold soundz
05-23-2010, 12:13 AM
I think the real question is: Will Federer or Nadal finish as #1? I think Nadal will.

joeri888
05-23-2010, 07:36 AM
Probably Nadal will take over. But a lot could depend on Wimbledon in that regard. If Fed manages to defend Wimbledon, and sees Nadal is closing in, he might go for some smaller events and stands a chance.

Hitman
05-23-2010, 07:44 AM
He will likely lose it to Rafa after Wimbledon, provided he does well at the FO.

Not sure if he will regain, it depends how everyone is playing around the USO.

Talker
05-23-2010, 08:04 AM
He'll lose it, Nadal is closing in and can get a ton of points at Wimby.
At least there's some pressure on Roger, he'll have to push himself and that means some more dramatic matches. :)

HollerOne5
05-23-2010, 09:42 AM
Lets be honest, if Rafa wins RG (likely) they will already be really close. All rafa will have to do is probably make QF or SF at Wimbledon to assure #1 after that tournament, seeing how he has 0 points to defend.

Rafa - US Open #1 Seed

niff
05-23-2010, 10:06 AM
Yeah I fully expect Rafa to overtake him after Wimbo, he has sooo many potential points in the next few months.

kournacopia
05-23-2010, 10:06 AM
Actually I don't think Nadal will do that well at W, depending on the draw. Big hitter will take him out. Others have begun to figure him out.

TheTruth
05-23-2010, 10:14 AM
He'll lose it, Nadal is closing in and can get a ton of points at Wimby.
At least there's some pressure on Roger, he'll have to push himself and that means some more dramatic matches. :)

That's a good post, and a good thought. Dramatic matches. That would be nice.

dh003i
05-23-2010, 10:40 AM
It'd be too bad if Federer lost the #1 while losing Wimbledon, because Nadal did well there. Then you'd have a #1 ranked player with less slams than the #2. But other tournaments matter too, and if they weren't included in the rankings, they wouldn't be played.

That said, if he's #2 with 2 slams and Nadal is #1 with 1 slam, we all know who's really had the better year up to that point.

Puredrivetennis
05-23-2010, 10:44 AM
It'd be too bad if Federer lost the #1 while losing Wimbledon, because Nadal did well there. Then you'd have a #1 ranked player with less slams than the #2. But other tournaments matter too, and if they weren't included in the rankings, they wouldn't be played.

That said, if he's #2 with 2 slams and Nadal is #1 with 1 slam, we all know who's really had the better year up to that point.


Very well said.

TheLoneWolf
05-23-2010, 10:52 AM
Actually I don't think Nadal will do that well at W, depending on the draw. Big hitter will take him out. Others have begun to figure him out.
I guess the only one that hasn't figured him out is Fed. Nadal has taken 6 out of their last 7 matches. LOL.

TheLoneWolf
05-23-2010, 10:56 AM
It'd be too bad if Federer lost the #1 while losing Wimbledon, because Nadal did well there. Then you'd have a #1 ranked player with less slams than the #2. But other tournaments matter too, and if they weren't included in the rankings, they wouldn't be played.

That said, if he's #2 with 2 slams and Nadal is #1 with 1 slam, we all know who's really had the better year up to that point.
I don't agree. It's way tougher to make the clay MS trebble like Nadal just did than to win AO. Someone wins AO every year. Nadal is the first guy to ever win three MS on clay consecutively. And he made more points in the process too (3000 vs 2000.)

Puredrivetennis
05-23-2010, 10:59 AM
I don't agree. It's way tougher to make the clay MS trebble like Nadal just did than to win AO. Someone wins AO every year. Nadal is the first guy to ever win three MS on clay consecutively. And he made more points in the process too (3000 vs 2000.)

Thats just nasty.

mandy01
05-23-2010, 11:03 AM
If he does,he does.Roger's record at the top is anyway insane and he'll be short of breaking Pete's record just by a couple of weeks or so( if he loses it right after RG.)
.He's still had a great run at the top .

Cassius Clay
05-23-2010, 11:05 AM
Fed will fall one week short of beating Sampras's most weeks as #1 record.

TheLoneWolf
05-23-2010, 11:08 AM
Thats just nasty.
What's nasty about it? It's simply true, don't you agree?

TheLoneWolf
05-23-2010, 11:09 AM
If he does,he does.Roger's record at the top is anyway insane and he'll be short of breaking Pete's record just by a couple of weeks or so( if he loses it right after RG.)
.He's still had a great run at the top .
So did Mirka, until she put one stone too many. :)

^^Hopefully young children and innocent souls won't get it.

dh003i
05-23-2010, 11:12 AM
I don't agree. It's way tougher to make the clay MS trebble like Nadal just did than to win AO. Someone wins AO every year. Nadal is the first guy to ever win three MS on clay consecutively. And he made more points in the process too (3000 vs 2000.)

I can think of a lot of arbitrary combinations that no one has ever done before. I mean, Federer's runs on HC at his peak were pretty unparalleled and insane.

They're very impressive. So too is Nadal winning the 3 MS on clay consecutively.

But in the modern game, all is subsumed to the Majors.

pjonesy
05-23-2010, 11:17 AM
Although Federer has the most semifinal appearances in consecutive slams, owns the most Grand Slam singles titles, has never retired from a match and is widely considered the GOAT, he wants more. Just like Sampras played in an excessive amount of tournaments late in the year to extend his year end # 1 streak, Roger will do whatever he can to beat Sampras' weeks at # 1 record. I'm not saying he will do it, he has to defend Roland Garros, but he will be throwing the kitchen sink at people.

TheLoneWolf
05-23-2010, 11:21 AM
I can think of a lot of arbitrary combinations that no one has ever done before. I mean, Federer's runs on HC at his peak were pretty unparalleled and insane.

They're very impressive. So too is Nadal winning the 3 MS on clay consecutively.

But in the modern game, all is subsumed to the Majors.
But a sequence of 3 consecutive MS has never been achieved by anyone before. That's not a random event, anymore than Fed making it to 23 consecutive SF in slams is a random event. Credit where credit is due.

Plus, the points don't lie.

It's very simple really, if you were a tennis player (either Fed or Nadal) and someone offered you one of these 2 bets:
1. I'll give you $1 Million to win the next Slam.
2. I'll give you $1 Million to win the next 3 MS tournaments.

Which one would you choose? It's just very simple.

TheLoneWolf
05-23-2010, 11:24 AM
Although Federer has the most semifinal appearances in consecutive slams, owns the most Grand Slam singles titles, has never retired from a match and is widely considered the GOAT, he wants more. Just like Sampras played in an excessive amount of tournaments late in the year to extend his year end # 1 streak, Roger will do whatever he can to beat Sampras' weeks at # 1 record. I'm not saying he will do it, he has to defend Roland Garros, but he will be throwing the kitchen sink at people.
The GOAT? I laugh when people talk about GOAT. The mere concept of GOAT is a joke, because it lacks any rigor. How can the GOAT be 14-7 against his main opponent anyway? The argument falls appart right there.

Michael Bluth
05-23-2010, 11:26 AM
I'm sure Federer is really regretting his poor performances at IW and Miami now. Considering how the other top players collapsed in those two events he could easily have taken both and have an insurmountable lead at no.1.

That said, he should probably get to the final of Roland Garros and win Halle, ensuring that he breaks Sampras' total weeks record.

To keep no.1 after Wimbledon he has to hope that Nadal gets Roddick in his quarter or something similar. If Roddick were to beat Nadal in the quarters (quite possible considering Andy took out Rafa on the slow Miami hardcourts) and Federer won the title that would be enough to hold on to number 1 I think.

Cyan
05-23-2010, 11:26 AM
Hopefully.

dh003i
05-23-2010, 11:39 AM
But a sequence of 3 consecutive MS has never been achieved by anyone before. That's not a random event, anymore than Fed making it to 23 consecutive SF in slams is a random event. Credit where credit is due.

Plus, the points don't lie.

It's very simple really, if you were a tennis player (either Fed or Nadal) and someone offered you one of these 2 bets:
1. I'll give you $1 Million to win the next Slam.
2. I'll give you $1 Million to win the next 3 MS tournaments.

Which one would you choose? It's just very simple.

Right, it has never been done before, but neither was Federer's 23 consecutive SF; or his dominance over the HC during his peak. But all of these things are secondary to the Majors.

And I would certainly prefer to win the next slam, as opposed to the next 3 MS tournaments, if I were a tennis player who cared about history. (as me, I'd just pick whichever combination gave me the most money).

kraggy
05-23-2010, 11:57 AM
Right, it has never been done before, but neither was Federer's 23 consecutive SF; or his dominance over the HC during his peak. But all of these things are secondary to the Majors.

And I would certainly prefer to win the next slam, as opposed to the next 3 MS tournaments, if I were a tennis player who cared about history. (as me, I'd just pick whichever combination gave me the most money).

But lets just assume for the moment that the ranking and point system was not designed to please YOU but rather it was designed by a group of people who know a lot more than armchair enthusiasts. If the ranking system says A is no 1, then A is no 1. Even when Jankovic was no 1 without winning a slam, it just showed that on a day in day out basis, she was better than everyone else in the field.

Danstevens
05-23-2010, 12:54 PM
From how the points stand at the moment, I would imagine that Federer will lose number one after Wimbledon but then regain it later on in the year on the hard courts.

kraggy
05-23-2010, 01:07 PM
From how the points stand at the moment, I would imagine that Federer will lose number one after Wimbledon but then regain it later on in the year on the hard courts.

I think that's quite accurate. I think a somewhat reasonable scenario is that Nadal wins FO and Fed makes the final and then Fed wins Wimby and Nadal makes the final. This scenario would result in Nadal becoming no 1. Surprisingly, Nadal has more points to defend from the HC Masters events in the latter half of the season than Federer. So it is unlikely that Nadal can build on his lead there, it is more likely that Fed would catch up there.

In the end I think it will come down to the US open. For Nadal to end the yr as no 1, I think he will have to do better at the US open than Fed. Improbable but not impossible by any stretch.

dh003i
05-23-2010, 01:24 PM
But lets just assume for the moment that the ranking and point system was not designed to please YOU but rather it was designed by a group of people who know a lot more than armchair enthusiasts. If the ranking system says A is no 1, then A is no 1. Even when Jankovic was no 1 without winning a slam, it just showed that on a day in day out basis, she was better than everyone else in the field.

I'm not disputing that. I'm saying that the slams are more important than the #1 ranking. The #1 is basically a ranking of a blend of consistency and good play...or it can be.

To win a slam requires superb play. Doing that is better overall in the context of one's career than being #1 but winning no slams.

Times when you have players ranked #1 who haven't won a slam indicate some kind of deficiency. That could be the case if Federer declines a little in a year or so, but still wins 1 slam for a while, and Nadal doesn't get anything other than the FO, with the USO and AO going to different people. You could then have a consistent but non-superb player like Davydenko getting the #1; more likely would be Murray. I could see him going far enough in slams, even finals, but losing to guys who were playing better and who were just better in the biggest moments (like Federer), but being more consistent overall.

That would indicate a deficiency in the field, to be blamed on the consistent players (presumably Murray) who'd be ranked so high, but fail to win slams, because older greats (like Federer, Nadal) could raise their their level for 1 slam, and random but inconsistent power-houses like Delpo come out.

Yes, in that case, Murray would be #1, but there'd still be a huge knock on him. I could easily see it happening, him being a slamless #1 during a period in which Nadal and then Federer decline, but still win slams, and other players are too hot for Murray to handle.

statto
05-23-2010, 01:29 PM
It'd be too bad if Federer lost the #1 while losing Wimbledon, because Nadal did well there. Then you'd have a #1 ranked player with less slams than the #2. But other tournaments matter too, and if they weren't included in the rankings, they wouldn't be played.

That said, if he's #2 with 2 slams and Nadal is #1 with 1 slam, we all know who's really had the better year up to that point.

What goes around comes around. Nadal was #2 in the world after Wimbledon 2008 even though he'd won two out of three slams and more masters than Fed that year.

I think that's quite accurate. I think a somewhat reasonable scenario is that Nadal wins FO and Fed makes the final and then Fed wins Wimby and Nadal makes the final. This scenario would result in Nadal becoming no 1. Surprisingly, Nadal has more points to defend from the HC Masters events in the latter half of the season than Federer. So it is unlikely that Nadal can build on his lead there, it is more likely that Fed would catch up there.

In the end I think it will come down to the US open. For Nadal to end the yr as no 1, I think he will have to do better at the US open than Fed. Improbable but not impossible by any stretch.

Nadal's post-Wimbledon season last year was poor, so it's hard to see where Federer takes points off Nadal after Wimbledon. I'd also suggest that if Nadal makes the Wimbledon final he'd be a warm favourite against Federer, which would result in another 1600 point swing.

davey25
05-23-2010, 01:36 PM
Nadal's post Wimbledon season was not that poor for his standards. In fact it is quite typical of his standards. Making the semis of the U.S Open is not poor for him, he never has fared better than that. His fall season results are never that good. If anything it would be alot easier for Federer to improve on his results at that point than Nadal. It is more likely Federer wins the U.S Open which he failed to do last year than Nadal making the final there. It is also much more likely for Federer to improve his results after the U.S Open than Nadal if he is actually willing to put in the effort. Nadal actually collected more points after the U.S Open last year I think than Federer, and on that kind of surface which is Nadal's worst it would be very doable for Federer to reverse that if he actually chooses to push himself.

JuliusWinto
05-23-2010, 02:30 PM
I think he loses it after wimbledon for the rest of the year.

statto
05-23-2010, 02:39 PM
It is also much more likely for Federer to improve his results after the U.S Open than Nadal if he is actually willing to put in the effort. Nadal actually collected more points after the U.S Open last year I think than Federer, and on that kind of surface which is Nadal's worst it would be very doable for Federer to reverse that if he actually chooses to push himself.

I take your point about Nadal's season, but Federer improving is a huge if. He's only won two masters titles in the past three years, so he's clearly getting to a point where he has to pick his spots to give maximum effort. He also has to defend a win at Cincy.

I think that if Nadal can win the French and make the final of Wimbledon then the gap will be too big for Federer to make up before the end of the year. I reckon his only shot would be going 5-0 at the ATP finals, but that's a big ask.

davey25
05-23-2010, 02:41 PM
I take your point about Nadal's season, but Federer improving is a huge if. He's only won two masters titles in the past three years, so he's clearly getting to a point where he has to pick his spots to give maximum effort. He also has to defend a win at Cincy.

I think that if Nadal can win the French and make the final of Wimbledon then the gap will be too big for Federer to make up before the end of the year. I reckon his only shot would be going 5-0 at the ATP finals, but that's a big ask.

I am not a Federer fan but I think he only puts in the effort at these events if he feels he needs to. I think if he were to lose #1 he would put more effort into them towards the end of the year if he felt there was a chance of him retaking. And if that is the case I expect he would have better results than Nadal pretty much everywhere after Wimbledon as we are now into surfaces that are not Nadal's favorites, and after the U.S Open even moreso. We will see though.

kraggy
05-23-2010, 07:37 PM
What goes around comes around. Nadal was #2 in the world after Wimbledon 2008 even though he'd won two out of three slams and more masters than Fed that year.



Nadal's post-Wimbledon season last year was poor, so it's hard to see where Federer takes points off Nadal after Wimbledon. I'd also suggest that if Nadal makes the Wimbledon final he'd be a warm favourite against Federer, which would result in another 1600 point swing.

Actually if you look at Nadal's results post Wimby they are not half bad!

Toronto - Q
Cininatti - S
Beijing - S
Shanghai - F
Paris - S

Federer

Toronto - Q
Cincinnati - W
Basel - F
Paris - R32

Despite the fact that Fed won Cincinnati, he didn't do much at the other events. Thus Nadal has more points to defend (outside of the US open).

My impression was that Nadal had not done well last fall but even with that he managed to rack up some points.

Bryan Swartz
05-23-2010, 08:12 PM
Times when you have players ranked #1 who haven't won a slam indicate some kind of deficiency.

How is this a deficiency? Would you honestly want a guy who won a slam, never going beyond QF in other events the rest of the year, to be ranked over a guy who consistently gets F and SF results?

bembi_a
05-24-2010, 06:16 AM
Federer will win FO and Wimbledon.

clayman2000
05-24-2010, 06:55 AM
What people must remember is that Federer still has more pts to defend than Rafa after Wimby. We must also remember that Rafa gained no points from the Masters Finals.

Lets assume Rafa wins the FO, beating Fed in the finals, and Federer wins Wimbledon, beating Rafa in the finals. Ill leave Halle and Queens out for sake of expedience. Their YTD points would look like this:
Nadal -- 7430
Federer -- 6125

For Federer to end 2010 no 1, he would have to outdo Rafa by 1305 points. Now keep in mind, that after the USO, Fed will take a break. I can easily see him skipping one of the final 4 Masters, and we know that as of late, he has not played well after taking time off.

Obviously, Wimbledon is key for Federer. If he were to loose to Rafa, their, the points would be even more skewed. I believe that for Federer to keep the no 1 rank at year end, he must win one of the FO, or Wimby.

cknobman
05-24-2010, 07:31 AM
Too many points for Fed to defend/loose and too many points for Rafa to gain.

Gonna be a hard sell for Roger to stay #1 if Rafa wins the FO and does well at Wimby.

coloskier
05-24-2010, 09:34 AM
I'm thinking Nadal, if healthy, takes it after Wimbledon.

That is the "big if". Nadal staying healthy. Not a bet I would want to take right now. It has happened earlier and earlier every year.