PDA

View Full Version : Did Federer Lose the Battle to #1 or Did Novak Win It


McEnroeisanartist
10-17-2012, 12:23 PM
It seems almost certain that Novak will end the year #1 and Federer #2. Did Federer lose the battle to #1 (any matches/tournaments that he will have regrets about). Or did Novak step up and earn the #1?

It seems like Novak won it. As the only really bad losses for Federer for the year were Roddick at Miami and Berdych at the U.S. Open. Federer probably shouldn't have played two Davis Cup ties.

BrooklynNY
10-17-2012, 12:26 PM
I think Djokovic lost it for a minute around Wimbledon, and then recovered.

I think Novak was the driving force the entire time. I think Fed becoming #1 again had alot more to do with Nole than with him, but he did show up everyday and put up good results.

I think Nole won it.

mattennis
10-17-2012, 12:30 PM
It seems almost certain that Novak will end the year #1 and Federer #2. Did Federer lose the battle to #1 (any matches/tournaments that he will have regrets about). Or did Novak step up and earn the #1?

It seems like Novak won it. As the only really bad losses for Federer for the year were Roddick at Miami and Berdych at the U.S. Open. Federer probably shouldn't have played two Davis Cup ties.

What do you want, man?

Federer is 31 for christ sake!

I think nobody thought he could do what he has done this year, winning Wimbledon, 3 M-1000 and 2 other tournaments. That is just epic!

Since the ATP computed Rankings started in 1973, the oldest Year End N1 have been Lendl in 1989 ( he was 29 ) and Agassi in 1999 ( he was 29 too ).

Cup8489
10-17-2012, 12:32 PM
What do you want, man?

Federer is 31 for christ sake!

I think nobody thought he could do what he has done this year, winning Wimbledon, 3 M-1000 and 2 other tournaments. That is just epic!

Since the ATP computed Rankings started in 1973, the oldest Year End N1 have been Lendl in 1989 ( he was 29 ) and Agassi in 1999 ( he was 29 too ).

Federer has nearly done that this year.

Steve0904
10-17-2012, 12:37 PM
Well I think Novak won it, but I'd like to emphasize a more important point. I've been so incredibly happy this year that Federer was able to fend off Djokovic as long as he was when he got to #1. He still is technically I guess. To me, that was the great part of it, that Federer just didn't "give it back" so to speak at the Olympics or Cincy or Shanghai. Basically that Djokovic has had to wait until Federer has a load of pts to defend to get it back is a great acheivement.

Sartorius
10-17-2012, 12:38 PM
I think they both got what they wanted in the end. Federer has explicitly said at Cincinnati (IIRC) that he achieved his goal by retaking No.1, and that he wasn't necessarily invested in retaining it (or he "would have played Toronto").

But as a poster above said Novak was probably the driving force the whole time, and he's duly in prime position again. For Federer their match at Wimbledon, and the whole tournament was key obviously. As a fan I thought it was perfect. :)

6-1 6-3 6-0
10-17-2012, 12:44 PM
Like I said, you just can't satisfy a Federer fan.

Russeljones
10-17-2012, 12:50 PM
Federer won it. He was 'never in a light year' supposed to be in this position to begin with.

Sabratha
10-17-2012, 01:08 PM
I think Djokovic won it.

NadalAgassi
10-17-2012, 01:11 PM
Federer didnt go for it as much as he should have IMO. He hasnt played enough since the Olympics, and has made it easier for Djokovic to pile up the points and widen his points gap in the race (which will inevitably lead to him taking #1 back very next event and holding it by years end by a large points margin). Maybe he feels at his age he needs the rest which is understandable but he hasnt played as well since the Olympics apart from the Cinncinati final, so it seemed his form was better when he was playing regularly too.

Tieing the record of 6 year end #1s was a prestigious mark and this year was clearly his last chance at it, and I am very surprised with it within his grasp he made such marginal effort at it.

Hood_Man
10-17-2012, 01:23 PM
So are you going to answer the question with a plausible response, or are you just going to troll all day?

He's just some bored kid, if you ignore him he'll go away :)

I think Novak gained it, he's doing better at this point in the season than he did last year, and there's nothing Federer can do to stop his ascent at this point. It's entirely in Novak's hands.

He'll be the first guy to end two consecutive years as #1, who's not named Federer, since Hewitt all the way back in 2001-2002 8)

roundiesee
10-17-2012, 04:42 PM
Novak definitely won it (are we speaking too soon? Probably not, :) ). His performances in Beijing and Shanghai were absolutely wonderful and he definitely deserves the year end number one (if he gets it of course), :)

smoledman
10-17-2012, 07:44 PM
Djokovic won it.

Tony48
10-17-2012, 07:46 PM
Djoker won it.

He did his best on grass, then made at least the finals or better in every tournament after the Olympics.

Smasher08
10-17-2012, 09:07 PM
As the only really bad losses for Federer for the year were Roddick at Miami and Berdych at the U.S. Open.

I'd argue that neither of those losses was "bad" since in both matches he was facing a huge-hitting opponent who was in the zone. I agree, however, that those losses were in earlier rounds than one would expect (ie QFs).

For me, the bad losses were Rome (should have rested instead), RG (couldn't hold leads), Halle (coasted), and Shanghai (never found top gear).

In any event, Fed had a very good year. Hats off to Djoker for being a little more consistent.

veroniquem
10-17-2012, 09:07 PM
Let's see. First part of the year, Djoko wins AO + a master. Fed wins 2 500 and a master: advantage Djoko. On clay, Fed won a master but Djoko made 3 finals: 2 masters + RG: advantage Djoko. Summer hard, Fed won a master, Djoko won a master + made 2 other finals: master and USO: advantage Djoko. Asian swing: flawless for Djoko with 2 titles, not even a final for Fed. The only part of the season when Fed outperformed Djoko was grass, there he did much better. Unfortunately for Fed, grass is only 2 events (and that's just because of the Olympics, otherwise it would be only 1).
Djoko outperformed Fed the entire year except on grass. I say: he deserves #1 100%, not just for the titles he won but for his exceptional consistency throughout.

Smasher08
10-17-2012, 09:18 PM
Summer hard, Fed won a master, Djoko won a master + made 2 other finals: master and USO: advantage Djoko. Asian swing: flawless for Djoko with 2 titles, not even a final for Fed. The only part of the season when Fed outperformed Djoko was grass

Hmmmm biased much?

I like how Fed hands Djoker a bagel in Cincy and you describe the latter as "outperforming" the former.

Nope.

Djoker was lucky to be the only one of the top players who showed up in T.O. and didn't break down. That's hardly "outperforming", now is it?

And what's more remarkable is how the player who, according to your amusingly canted views, was consistently "outperformed" throughout the first six months of the year and yet somehow wound up snatching the #1 ranking away from the allegedly superior player.

Astounding!

15_ounce
10-17-2012, 09:28 PM
Did Federer what? He hasn't lost his number 1 ranking. He is still number1 at the moment.

adil1972
10-17-2012, 09:32 PM
there are few records that fed dont have like 109 tourney by connors, 2nd french open, 82-3 mcenroe 1984 record, sampras 6 year end no. 1 ranking

Sabratha
10-17-2012, 09:34 PM
Novak definitely won it (are we speaking too soon? Probably not, :) ). His performances in Beijing and Shanghai were absolutely wonderful and he definitely deserves the year end number one (if he gets it of course), :)
Doesn't it depend on the WTF?

veroniquem
10-17-2012, 09:34 PM
Hmmmm biased much?

I like how Fed hands Djoker a bagel in Cincy and you describe the latter as "outperforming" the former.

!

Excuse me??!! :shock: Summer hard court consists of 3 (main) events: 2 masters and a slam. Fed's results in all 3 events: Canada: skips, Cincy: wins, USO: loses in quarter. Djoko's results in the 3 events: Canada: wins, Cincy: final, USO: final. In the summer hard court swing, Djoko outperformed Fed BY A LANDSLIDE. And you're the one who's crazily biased if you decide to eliminate USO (you know: THE SLAM) and Canada's results just because Cincy is the event Fed happens to have won. Seriously. There are some wacko people on this board. :???:

Sabratha
10-17-2012, 09:42 PM
Did Federer what? He hasn't lost his number 1 ranking. He is still number1 at the moment.
Say that next month.

kalyan4fedever
10-17-2012, 10:25 PM
Djoker sure has been trying very hard to win every tournament he is in and he is doing a pretty good job and so the # 1 is a plus and he deserves it for sure if he gets to it, no denying it.

NadalAgassi
10-17-2012, 10:42 PM
Hmmmm biased much?

I like how Fed hands Djoker a bagel in Cincy and you describe the latter as "outperforming" the former.

Nope.

Djoker was lucky to be the only one of the top players who showed up in T.O. and didn't break down. That's hardly "outperforming", now is it?


Maybe Federer should have showed up in Canada if it was so easy to do so an win according to you. Djokovic had played just as many matches at the Olympics as he did after all. On no planet other than Planet **** is a Masters win, Masters RU, U.S Open RU not outperforming a Masters DNP, Masters win, U.S Open quarterfinal (losing to an opponent Djokovic would have beaten in his sleep). There certainly is someone who is biased much here.

Paullaconte1
10-17-2012, 11:24 PM
Novak won it... he is really playing well.

Fed had also a remarkable season.

To me both are winners!

pame
10-17-2012, 11:40 PM
Maybe Federer should have showed up in Canada if it was so easy to do so an win according to you. Djokovic had played just as many matches at the Olympics as he did after all. On no planet other than Planet **** is a Masters win, Masters RU, U.S Open RU not outperforming a Masters DNP, Masters win, U.S Open quarterfinal (losing to an opponent Djokovic would have beaten in his sleep). There certainly is someone who is biased much here.

Amusing that you're fighting so hard to make the case even though you're comparing a 25 year old with a 31 year old. Implicitly says something about the quality of the 31 year old :)

Zarfot Z
10-18-2012, 12:31 AM
LOL Planet TW ****s are a truly special breed. Just look at my sig to get an idea.

Example of *******s intellect: Having a negative H2H against players 5-6 years younger than you is something to be embarrassed about.

Smasher08
10-18-2012, 08:41 PM
Excuse me??!! :shock: Summer hard court consists of 3 (main) events: 2 masters and a slam. Fed's results in all 3 events: Canada: skips, Cincy: wins, USO: loses in quarter. Djoko's results in the 3 events: Canada: wins, Cincy: final, USO: final. In the summer hard court swing, Djoko outperformed Fed BY A LANDSLIDE. And you're the one who's crazily biased if you decide to eliminate USO (you know: THE SLAM) and Canada's results just because Cincy is the event Fed happens to have won. Seriously. There are some wacko people on this board. :???:

Awww Veronica, are you simply unable to debate without constructing a straw man?

Clearly not.

I'm glad you used the phrase "wacko". Fits someone to a t.

Because if you think that being handed a BAGEL by someone means "outperforming" them, best of luck to you in life.

:rolleyes:

Smasher08
10-18-2012, 08:48 PM
Yup. Two 500s, three 1000s and the biggest tennis tournament in the world. Wozniacki-like at best.

You forgot about handing the other contender a bagel in their most recent match, at the alleged height of the other's hard court dominance.

Yep, Fed's ascension is clearly no different than Muster artificially inflating his ranking by playing every irrelevant clay tournament throughout the world. :sarcasm:

RAFA2005RG
10-18-2012, 08:58 PM
Nadal handed Federer the number one. There is no way a healthy Nadal would have been outranked by Federer in 2012.

cc0509
10-18-2012, 09:11 PM
Nadal handed Federer the number one. There is no way a healthy Nadal would have been outranked by Federer in 2012.


So why is it that Federer has won more titles than Nadal this year, most of them before Wimbledon where Nadal could not get beyond round 2. In fact the last two out of three times they played, Federer won. The facts do not support your statement at all. Nadal was healthy up until Wimbledon, how many non-clay titles did he win before then and how many total titles?

Smasher08
10-18-2012, 09:14 PM
Nadal handed Federer the number one. There is no way a healthy Nadal would have been outranked by Federer in 2012.

Denial is always a beautiful thing to behold.

http://i1238.photobucket.com/albums/ff488/Smasher08/e620f4d7b.jpg

egn
10-18-2012, 09:46 PM
Djokovic won it, but this battle isn't over. Djokovic will grab it back but it's quickly on the line again once AO comes around.

RAFA2005RG
10-19-2012, 12:52 AM
So why is it that Federer has won more titles than Nadal this year, most of them before Wimbledon where Nadal could not get beyond round 2. In fact the last two out of three times they played, Federer won. The facts do not support your statement at all. Nadal was healthy up until Wimbledon, how many non-clay titles did he win before then and how many total titles?

Nadal was healthy up until Wimbledon? :lol:

That's a laugh. You are waste of time if you think that :lol:

Nadal pulled out of the Miami semis. Why? Because he was damaged at Indian Wells. He later said he shouldn't have played Miami at all.

NDFM
10-19-2012, 12:53 AM
Djokovic won it fair and square with his consistency all year round (greater results in slams and masters)

Steve0904
10-19-2012, 04:29 AM
Nadal was healthy up until Wimbledon? :lol:

That's a laugh. You are waste of time if you think that :lol:

Nadal pulled out of the Miami semis. Why? Because he was damaged at Indian Wells. He later said he shouldn't have played Miami at all.

I won't get into when he was injured. Just because he had to pull out of Miami means nothing. He played the whole CC season after that. Nadal is healthy when he's winning, and injured when he's losing. It's very simple, and I don't mean that in a good way. I mean that's the excuse his fans come out with when he loses.

RAFA2005RG
10-19-2012, 05:36 AM
I won't get into when he was injured. Just because he had to pull out of Miami means nothing. He played the whole CC season after that. Nadal is healthy when he's winning, and injured when he's losing. It's very simple, and I don't mean that in a good way. I mean that's the excuse his fans come out with when he loses.

http://sports.ndtv.com/tennis/news/item/198097-nadal-confirmed-for-mexican-open-in-february

Nadal said he played with anti-inflammatories on course to winning his record seventh title at Roland Garros in May, and that he took pain-killing injections at Wimbledon.

"His training has gone well, physically and mentally he is in good shape," Toni Nadal said. "We can't put a fixed date down yet for his return but all signs are positive that he will return sooner than later."

Nadal could still return for the season-ending ATP World Tour Finals in London from Nov. 5-11 before the Nov. 16-18 Davis Cup final in Prague. But the Mubadala World Tennis Championship where Novak Djokovic, Andy Murray and David Ferrer are confirmed from Dec. 27-29 looks more likely.

TheF1Bob
10-19-2012, 05:51 AM
This is what happen when you are in 3 slam finals but only win the one. Novaks been consistent as hell in reaching these finals be it a slam or a master series.

Put it this way, if he had won the French or the USO, we wouldn't be having this discussion now, would we ******s? ;)

Hitman
10-19-2012, 06:31 AM
This is what happen when you are in 3 slam finals but only win the one. Novaks been consistent as hell in reaching these finals be it a slam or a master series.

Put it this way, if he had won the French or the USO, we wouldn't be having this discussion now, would we ******s? ;)

Novak's year this year reminds me of Rafa's last year. Rafa had an incredible 2011, he was just beaten by a better player, which is why some people look at the season in a negative way. But the guy was reaching finals left right and centre. 10 finals, three slam finals and five masters finals says it all.

This year, Novak has played the role of Rafa from 2011, but no one has played the role Novak from 2011. Instead the remaining three slams were equally split, along with other big titles among the other big three players. This is what has resulted in Novak's supreme consistency aiding him in getting that ranking back within in grasp before this season ends. And rightfully so.

Smasher08
10-19-2012, 06:34 AM
This is what happen when you are in 3 slam finals but only win the one. Novaks been consistent as hell in reaching these finals be it a slam or a master series.

Put it this way, if he had won the French or the USO, we wouldn't be having this discussion now, would we ******s? ;)

Yawn. Let's get realistic here: your bluster aside, Djoker regressed from last year, while Fed improved.

And I sure can't wait to see how Djoker and ******* perform at 30.

(Assuming Nads is still playing after next year, of course)

Smasher08
10-19-2012, 08:09 AM
NadalAgassi made yet another ridiculous claim in a post of his that appears to have been deleted by mods, wherein he tried to pass off his opinion as fact.

Omitting the personal abuse he predicated it with, the claim is:

"Do you really think Roddick in the 60s playing with those racquets would still be hitting a 140 pmh serve consistently, LOL!"

The answer to this question is actually a clear and unequivocal YES.

Tennis Magazine conducted service tests during the late 90s with Mark Philippousis using both graphite and wooden rackets. Using a radar gun they found that his wood racket serves were virtually the same speed as with graphite rackets. IIRC there was only a 3 or 4 mph differential.

Link to article referencing the test here (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/speed-kings-smash-subtlety-out-of-tennis-1257273.html)

So since A-Rod's serve maxes out in the mid 150s, even with a 3-4% reduction he would still be capable of hitting 140mph serves consistently.

Of course, NadalAgassi -- being the supreme tennis authority he claims to be -- never should have made such a patently risible statement to begin with: anyone familiar with tennis in the 60s-80s would know all about Roscoe Tanner.

All things considered, I find it very unfortunate that NadalAgassi chose to refer to someone else as an "idiot".

Steve0904
10-19-2012, 08:23 AM
http://sports.ndtv.com/tennis/news/item/198097-nadal-confirmed-for-mexican-open-in-february

I just can't find it in myself to care about Nadal being injured. You know why? Because it's his own damn fault. If his injuries were fluke accidents I might care more, but even then he'd just be labelled fragile. This is the problem. Nobody that upsets Nadal outside the top 4 gets their deserved credit no matter how well they play, and make no mistake guys like Soderling and Rosol played fantastic. In fact, I'll make the case that in the Rosol match, whether Nadal was injured or healthy it would not have mattered. It's a joke.

Smasher08
10-19-2012, 08:47 AM
Maybe Federer should have showed up in Canada if it was so easy to do so an win according to you. Djokovic had played just as many matches at the Olympics as he did after all.

Your hilarious posts continue. But this one's too easy.

1. Do you recall a chap named Andy Murray who also tried showing up in T.O.?

2. Do you recall what ensued there and at Cincy?

3. Not a bright move, was it?


. . . Oh and btw, if Djoker lost to both Murray and Delpo at the Olympics, he would've lost to Berdych at the USO. ;)

NadalAgassi
10-19-2012, 09:08 AM
Your hilarious posts continue.

This coming from someone who thinks DNP at Masters, Win at Masters, Quarters at U.S Open >> Win at Masters, Finals at Masters, Finals of U.S Open. ROTFL!!!!! You ****s and your constant delusions and comedy without even trying. Now back to earth. Djokovic is the year end #1 and it is because he outperformed Federer EVERYWHERE except for grass, which everyone who isnt a blind **** realizes. Deal with it.


As for your foolish point:

1. Do you recall a chap named Andy Murray who also tried showing up in T.O.?

2. Do you recall what ensued there and at Cincy?

3. Not a bright move, was it?


So Djokovic who played just as much matches as both Federer and Murray at the Olympics was apparently fit and good enough to play and reach the final day of BOTH Canada and Cinncinnati, which neither Murray or Federer were able to do. That says it all to why Murray or Federer are not the year end #1 and Djokovic is, so thanks for only helping to prove the very point you are failing badly to argue against. Also given your example you can stop crowing about the bagel Federer gave Djokovic in the Cincinnati final as it apparent Federer probably would have dropped dead altogether had he played both events by your logic, let alone reaching the final of the latter. According to your logic the task of attempting both after a long run at the Olympics and Wimbledon should be so physically demanding that doing anymore but playing a couple matches at both like Murray is almost impossible, so Djokovic must have managed some Mount Everest by going deep at Wimbledon, playing the maximum # of matches at the Olympics, winning Canada, and then making the final of Cincinnati. Thanks for coming, try harder next time.

Smasher08
10-19-2012, 09:42 AM
This coming from someone who thinks DNP at Masters, Win at Masters, Quarters at U.S Open >> Win at Masters, Finals at Masters, Finals of U.S Open. ROTFL!!!!! You ****s and your constant delusions and comedy without even trying. Now back to earth. Djokovic is the year end #1 and it is because he outperformed Federer EVERYWHERE except for grass, which everyone who isnt a blind **** realizes. Deal with it.


As for your foolish point:



So Djokovic who played just as much matches as both Federer and Murray at the Olympics was apparently fit and good enough to play and reach the final day of BOTH Canada and Cinncinnati, which neither Murray or Federer were able to do. That says it all to why Murray or Federer are not the year end #1 and Djokovic is, so thanks for only helping to prove the very point you are failing badly to argue against. Also given your example you can stop crowing about the bagel Federer gave Djokovic in the Cincinnati final as it apparent Federer probably would have dropped dead altogether had he played both events by your logic, let alone reaching the final of the latter. According to your logic the task of attempting both after a long run at the Olympics and Wimbledon should be so physically demanding that doing anymore but playing a couple matches at both like Murray is almost impossible, so Djokovic must have managed some Mount Everest by going deep at Wimbledon, playing the maximum # of matches at the Olympics, winning Canada, and then making the final of Cincinnati. Thanks for coming, try harder next time.

http://www.skepticalraptor.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Strawman-light.jpg

You really might want to stop embarassing yourself, buddy. And writing posts that get deleted by mods.

It's incontestable that Djokovic has failed to reproduce the form he had from Jan-Sept '11. It's also incontestable that (a) in at least two of his MS1000 wins Djoker benefitted from a significantly depleted field, (b) Federer has owned Djoker off of clay this year, c) even on clay Federer carried back and hip injuries that seriously compromised his performance, and (d) despite all your braying to the contrary Federer's h2h over Djoko (including handing him a bagel) indicates personal superiority during the hard court season you insist on trumpeting.

I can see how someone so simplistic and prone to tantrums can struggle with nuances such as these. Especially someone so blissfully unaware of players such as Roscoe Tanner.

But matter these do. And since your last post fails to grasp these and rails feebly against straw men, its points (I use this term very loosely and charitably) are wholly irrelevant.

Alchemy-Z
10-19-2012, 09:48 AM
As overheard on a local court the other night "Blue Clay won #1 for FED...he better thank his lucky stars for that MS1000"

Smasher08
10-19-2012, 09:54 AM
As overheard on a local court the other night "Blue Clay won #1 for FED...he better thank his lucky stars for that MS1000"

LOL just like Rafa, Nole and Muzz must thank the sweet baby Jesus every night for slow grass, deadened hard courts, and poly strings.

Alchemy-Z
10-19-2012, 09:59 AM
was laughing to myself...I love seeing 3.5 hacks discuss the reasons people are winning at the pro level.

dimeaxe
10-19-2012, 02:11 PM
LOL just like Rafa, Nole and Muzz must thank the sweet baby Jesus every night for slow grass, deadened hard courts, and poly strings.

even on clay Federer carried back and hip injuries that seriously compromised his performance, and (d) despite all your braying to the contrary Federer's h2h over Djoko (including handing him a bagel) indicates personal superiority during the hard court season you insist on trumpeting.


I mean Federer lost 8+1 times to Nole in last year an 1/2, so I really don't know about which one owning you're talking about.

Prisoner of Birth
10-19-2012, 02:15 PM
I mean Federer lost 8 times to Nole in last year an 1/2, so I really don't know about which one owning you're talking about.

6-0, 7-6? That owning. Let it be said that Federer was 31 and Djokovic was 25 when that happened.

But no argument, though, Djokovic clearly is the more deserving YE #1 at this point.

dimeaxe
10-19-2012, 02:15 PM
LOL just like Rafa, Nole and Muzz must thank the sweet baby Jesus every night for slow grass, deadened hard courts, and poly strings.

Yeah, and Fed should be grateful about his first 7 GS, winning all against HOF opponents.

dimeaxe
10-19-2012, 02:18 PM
6-0, 7-6? That owning. Let it be said that Federer was 31 and Djokovic was 25 when that happened.

So, does it realy matter?! Djokovic played 3 weeks in a row, while Fed was in Switzerland resting after olympics, so you think that Novak was really fresh in finals???

Prisoner of Birth
10-19-2012, 02:21 PM
So, does it realy matter?! Djokovic played 3 weeks in a row, while Fed was in Switzerland resting after olympics, so you think that Novak was really fresh in finals???

Just because you're tired doesn't mean you weren't owned. Federer got owned by Murray at the Olympics.

dimeaxe
10-19-2012, 02:30 PM
Just because you're tired doesn't mean you weren't owned. Federer got owned by Murray at the Olympics.

Yes, and as a Djokovic fan, I believe that Federer was tired in Olympic finals, there's no sour grapes really, but I will not accept this term like owning player in one match.I think it's more related with rivalries like Federer and Roddick, Federer owned his rival big time:)

Prisoner of Birth
10-19-2012, 02:43 PM
Yes, and as a Djokovic fan, I believe that Federer was tired in Olympic finals, there's no sour grapes really, but I will not accept this term like owning player in one match.I think it's more related with rivalries like Federer and Roddick, Federer owned his rival big time:)

Owning is when your opponent has nothing to celebrate about. Atleast in my mind. So no, Federer hasn't owned Roddick as Roddick did win a few times.

Smasher08
10-19-2012, 02:43 PM
But no argument, though, Djokovic clearly is the more deserving YE #1 at this point.

He has more points, there's no disputing that. But the word "deserving" has other connotations which I would dispute.

And as for my friend from the land of palacinke (full disclosure: I really like palacinke) "owning" does indeed happen in specific matches. Fed owned Hewitt when he handed him a double bagel in a certain USO final, just as Nadal owned Fed at RG '08 and Fed owned him at WTF '11.

Happy to discuss over Slivovica anytime :)

Prisoner of Birth
10-19-2012, 03:08 PM
He has more points, there's no disputing that. But the word "deserving" has other connotations which I would dispute.

And as for my friend from the land of palacinke (full disclosure: I really like palacinke) "owning" does indeed happen in specific matches. Fed owned Hewitt when he handed him a double bagel in a certain USO final, just as Nadal owned Fed at RG '08 and Fed owned him at WTF '11.

Happy to discuss over Slivovica anytime :)

Well, he did perform better at Slams by a significant margin. And he did straightset Federer a couple of times on Clay this year, if you're looking at the head-to-head. And he hasn't had a very shabby year at the Masters, either. I see no dispute.

NadalAgassi
10-19-2012, 03:13 PM
You really might want to stop embarassing yourself, buddy.

Talking to yourself in the mirror and posting what you are saying to yourself in front of the mirror a public internet forum is a distrubing trend. You should really on that. Although your own advice to yourself is good in this case, perhaps you should act upon it.

And writing posts that get deleted by mods.

More like you might want to start being a man rather than running like a crybaby to the mods when someones points embarass your failed logic.

It's incontestable that Djokovic has failed to reproduce the form he had from Jan-Sept '11.

Duh, what an Einstein you are. This isnt about Djokovic 2012 vs Djokovic 2011, it is Djokovic 2012 vs all others 2012 and Djokovic 2012 > all others 2012.

It's also incontestable that (a) in at least two of his MS1000 wins Djoker benefitted from a significantly depleted field

So I guess the ranking points should give less points if you win an event without so and so there. More genius logic, lol! I guess Federer's Wimbledon title in 2009 should be worth less points since Nadal didnt play then, and Federer wasnt a "worthy" #1 in 2009.

The rest of your post just gets dumber with each sentence so I will stop now before I split my side laughing at breaking down your attempts at "logic". :lol: You might want to notice even your fellow ****s in this thread arent giving you any support on this particular topic, especialy with reasons so poorly layed out as yours.

NadalAgassi
10-19-2012, 03:16 PM
So, does it realy matter?! Djokovic played 3 weeks in a row, while Fed was in Switzerland resting after olympics, so you think that Novak was really fresh in finals???

Of course he was, excuses only apply to Federer and to those somehow inadvertently involved in trying to diminish Djokovic in a thread about him being #1. After all Murray flaming out early in Cinncinati is to be expected since he played a bit before WDing in Canada, but Djokovic should be expected to be 100% after playing the same # of matches as Federer at the Olympics, winning Canada, then going all the way to the Cinncinati final. It is only logical of course. :lol: