PDA

View Full Version : WTF Winner Will Be Player Of The Year???


stringertom
10-19-2012, 11:33 PM
With the 4 slams split evenly, is it agreed that, should any of them win in London next month, that's the tiebreaker???

smoledman
10-19-2012, 11:38 PM
No, Djokovic is player of the year by a WIDE margin!

Tony48
10-19-2012, 11:57 PM
No.

One guy made 3 slam finals. The other only made 1.

Prisoner of Birth
10-19-2012, 11:58 PM
No.

One guy made 3 slam finals. The other only made 1.

Murray made 2.

merlinpinpin
10-20-2012, 12:23 AM
With the 4 slams split evenly, is it agreed that, should any of them win in London next month, that's the tiebreaker???

Probably, yes--even if this doesn't decide the #1 ranking. (As long as it's either Djokovic, Federer or Murray who wins, of course.) ;)

Sim
10-20-2012, 12:23 AM
Murray made 2.

And he's won OG. I'm not sure who will win it though

5555
10-20-2012, 12:25 AM
In 2003 slams were split evenly between Roddick, Federer, Ferrero and Agassi. Federer won WTF.

What happened? The members of the ATP voted Roddick "Player of The Year."

merlinpinpin
10-20-2012, 01:10 AM
In 2003 slams were split evenly between Roddick, Federer, Ferrero and Agassi. Federer won WTF.

What happened? The members of the ATP voted Roddick "Player of The Year."

That's why I said "probably", because nothing is ever 100% sure. But if Federer ends up the year #2 at the ripe old age of 31, with 7 or 8 tournament wins on all four surfaces/conditions (Djokovic only won on *one* up till now), including Wimbledon and WTF, and breaking the 300-week mark during the year, I wouldn't bet against him being awarded this accolade by his peers. ;)

joeri888
10-20-2012, 01:51 AM
I think you could make a case for it being close when Roger or Murray wins the WTF, but if Djokovic wins it's quite clear. I think rankings in the end are very fair. If Murray wins it he has won OG, WTF AND a slam, plus a final. That's the most big tournaments. If Roger wins, he's won a Slam, the WTF, a silver medal, 3 MS titles, and maybe 3 500's as well. That's a strong case too, but Roger has somewhat underperformed in Slams compared to the others.

It's quite close, and the rankings will reflect that. I think rankings ultimately are very fair in men's tennis.

batz
10-20-2012, 02:39 AM
With the 4 slams split evenly, is it agreed that, should any of them win in London next month, that's the tiebreaker???

Hey Tom - I hope you are well. I made exactly the point you are making after the USO. Of course, it all depends on how you want to measure POTY - many will argue that whoever finishes year end number 1 is, almost by definition, POTY - and it's a pretty compelling argument.

Others will say that there were 6 'big ones' up for grabs this year. If Roger wins WTF he'll have 2 of them - same as Murray. If Novak wins WTF then he'll have 2 of them - same as Murray, and if Rafa somehow wins WTF then he'll have 2 of them - same as Murray. But if Murray wins WTF then he'll have won 3 - half of the 'big ones' available; with the other half split between 3 players. That would be a reasonably strong argument for Murray being POTY despite only finishing 3rd in the rankings.

There's no slam dunk or right/wrong argument IMO - I think Nole is in pole position because in the event of a 'big ones' tie he has YE no1 and 3 slam finals to use in the tiebreaker!:)

It will be interesting to watch how things unfold.

Zildite
10-20-2012, 02:56 AM
Last time the year end #1 didn't win ATP Player Of The Year was 1989, right? Quite stuck in their ways.

NatF
10-20-2012, 02:56 AM
The WTF would be the tie breaker in my opinion. Murray won the Gold but he hasn't done nearly as well in the Masters series as the others. So I think in terms of achievements Nole = Roger > Andy.

No1e
10-20-2012, 03:08 AM
The WTF would be the tie breaker in my opinion. Murray won the Gold but he hasn't done nearly as well in the Masters series as the others. So I think in terms of achievements Nole = Roger > Andy.

Nole > Roger > Andy. Roger has not done nearly as well in slams as Nole.

NatF
10-20-2012, 03:24 AM
Nole > Roger > Andy. Roger has not done nearly as well in slams as Nole.

Yeah ok thats fair enough. Although Roger has won more titles. I do agree Nole has had a superior tournament in the big events.

BauerAlmeida
10-20-2012, 06:36 AM
Murray made 2.

And Nadal.

Steve0904
10-20-2012, 06:42 AM
All 3 of them are deserving. If Nole wins the WTF then it is without question. If Andy wins, then he'll have 3 of the "big ones," but his year hasn't been nearly as consistent, and he has no M1000 titles unless he wins Paris, and even if he does win Paris I'm not sure. In Roger's case, it's quite impressive he's even in this discussion at his age. I don't mean to sound biased, but the truth is, that's the tiebreaker for me. Novak should be #1 right now. There was no way he was going to replicate 2011, but he's done very well. He perhaps should've won more than he did. Federer has done things this year that a lot of people didn't think he could, myself included. I knew he could win a slam, but getting back to #1 was another matter. Couple that with his general motivation to win 500's and 1000's, and that's even more surprising.

Mainad
10-20-2012, 06:45 AM
No.

One guy made 3 slam finals. The other only made 1.

This year in Slam finals:

Djokovic = 3 (AO, FO & USO). Won AO.
Murray = 2 (Wimbledon & USO). Won USO.
Nadal = 2 (AO & FO). Won FO.
Federer = 1 (Wimbledon). Won.

No1e
10-20-2012, 06:57 AM
Nole 1 W + 2 F + 1 SF
Murray 1 W + 1 F + 1 SF + 1 QF
Nadal 1 W + 1 F + 1 Rd 2
Fed 1 W + 2 SF + 1 QF

It's clear that Djokovic has done much better than anyone else in slams.

Steve0904
10-20-2012, 07:15 AM
Nole 1 W + 2 F + 1 SF
Murray 1 W + 1 F + 1 SF + 1 QF
Nadal 1 W + 1 F + 1 Rd 2
Fed 1 W + 2 SF + 1 QF

It's clear that Djokovic has done much better than anyone else in slams.

Everybody knows this, and even though the slams are obviously the most important events on the calendar, they are not the only ones. Murray has the OG, Federer himself won a silver, and Novak did not win a medal, we also don't know about the WTF yet which is an event trumped only by the slams. It could be called the "indoor" slam for all intents and purposes. There is also the point that if Roger or Novak can win Paris, one of them will finish with 4 1000 titles, and the other will finish with 3. Novak has had the most consistent year. Nobody disputes that, but it's far from a consensus that it's been the "best."

No1e
10-20-2012, 07:20 AM
Everybody knows this, and even though the slams are obviously the most important events on the calendar, they are not the only ones. Murray has the OG, Federer himself won a silver, and Novak did not win a medal, we also don't know about the WTF yet which is an event trumped only by the slams. It could be called the "indoor" slam for all intents and purposes. There is also the point that if Roger or Novak can win Paris, one of them will finish with 4 1000 titles, and the other will finish with 3. Novak has had the most consistent year. Nobody disputes that, but it's far from a consensus that it's been the "best."

Reread what I wrote, and you will shut up.

Steve0904
10-20-2012, 07:23 AM
Reread what I wrote, and you will shut up.

There see. I can do that too ;)

MaiDee
10-20-2012, 08:53 AM
One gay has: 3 slam finals (1 won) + Sf 5.120 points
6 master finals (3 won) + Sf + Qf 5.340 points
Tennis is about slams and maybe masters and he has 9 finals 2 Sf and 1 Qf from 13 tournaments.
and only 15 tournaments!!!

Other guys are not near it with 17,18 tournaments. 2-3 more than Nole.
Federer: 17 tournaments 9165 points
Murray 18 tournaments 7510 points
Nole 15 tournaments 11410 points

How much hard work they need, and still no near the champion.
Olympic gold medal could be the reason to proclaim player, sportsman of the year, but in country for which he won the medal. In tennis world, slam final is way bigger than Olympic gold.
1200 points : 750 points.
Any how, between tennis fans, all arguments for player of the year, are valid - age of player, country proud, color of eyes, etc.

NadalAgassi
10-20-2012, 09:06 AM
My predictions:

-if Federer wins the WTF he still wont be named Player of the Year.

-if Murray wins the WTF he "might" be named Player of the Year because of haviing won 3 of the 6 biggest events- U.S Open, WTF, and the Olympics, and being a finalist at Wimbledon too, with some partiality to his breakthrough performance. Not sure though as 0 Masters titles is a glaring stat, maybe he can win Paris though.

-if Djokovic wins the WTF he wins the Player of the Year easily and even if he doesnt he probably does.

90's Clay
10-20-2012, 09:28 AM
How does winning a tournament with LITTLE value to the players anymore, and has lost just about all of its prestige among players on tour today (at least if you compare it to years past) make one the player of the year?

Hell most of the top players just "shut it down" after the USO anymore


It sucks to say because I have always loved the YEC, it has the importance of almost CRAPOLA anymore.


The only player that seems to actually take the YEC seriously anymore is Federer. He seems to be the only one that has a greater appreciation for the year end championships and its lineage

Prisoner of Birth
10-20-2012, 09:33 AM
How does winning a tournament with LITTLE value to the players anymore, and has lost just about all of its prestige among players on tour today (at least if you compare it to years past) make one the player of the year?

Hell most of the top players just "shut it down" after the USO anymore


It sucks to say because I have always loved the YEC, it has the importance of almost CRAPOLA anymore.


The only player that seems to actually take the YEC seriously anymore is Federer. He seems to be the only one that has a greater appreciation for the year end championships and its lineage

That's like saying Nadal's the only guy who gives a crapola about the French Open. Claims such as the one you just made have no premise, no drawing point, no sense. They're just something you say to put things down because you know noone can disprove you.

90's Clay
10-20-2012, 09:40 AM
That's like saying Nadal's the only guy who gives a crapola about the French Open. Claims such as the one you just made have no premise, no drawing point, no sense. They're just something you say to put things down because you know noone can disprove you.

Guys still take slams seriously, and everyone can enter those slams. By the end of the year, the top players can only enter the YEC, and by that time many (with already a ton of tennis played under their belt, nursing some injuries and are more battered and bruised) are just looking forward to next year and a bit of a break.

Surely you can't think a tournament at the end of the year means as much as a slam in the beginning of the year?

TMF
10-20-2012, 09:59 AM
WTF is the most important/prestigious event outside of the 4 slams. Whoever win deserves the Player of the Year award.

NatF
10-20-2012, 10:00 AM
Guys still take slams seriously, and everyone can enter those slams. By the end of the year, the top players can only enter the YEC, and by that time many (with already a ton of tennis played under their belt, nursing some injuries and are more battered and bruised) are just looking forward to next year and a bit of a break.

Surely you can't think a tournament at the end of the year means as much as a slam in the beginning of the year?

Does the Australian Open mean more than the US Open? Guys outside the top keep up the intense playing schedule to gain enough points to qualify for the WTF. Maybe the public don't recognise it as much as they used to (?) but it's still a big deal. Way bigger than a masters atleast.

NadalAgassi
10-20-2012, 10:13 AM
That's like saying Nadal's the only guy who gives a crapola about the French Open. Claims such as the one you just made have no premise, no drawing point, no sense. They're just something you say to put things down because you know noone can disprove you.

The French Open never had 5 of the top 6 withdraw as was the case at the 2005 YEC. Nalbandian the eventual winner was something like the 3rd alternate this year to even play, lol!

pame
10-20-2012, 10:18 AM
Dear Heavens! It can't be that difficult to go on the ATP site and read the criteria for determining the Singles (and Doubles) Player(s) of the Year.

Determined by Ranking
ATP World Tour No. 1

The player who ends the year as World No. 1 in the South African Airways ATP Rankings.

Gonzo_style
10-20-2012, 10:20 AM
WTF is the most important/prestigious event outside of the 4 slams. Whoever win deserves the Player of the Year award.

Maybe for you, but it's the only tournament that you can win even with two losses! As for me, IW and Miami are more important than WTFs

pame
10-20-2012, 10:27 AM
Maybe for you, but it's the only tournament that you can win even with two losses! As for me, IW and Miami are more important than WTFs

You forgot to mention that you can win IW & Miami, and any other of the scheduled events except WTF, by playing maybe only one seeded player. You can't get away with that in WTF, you got to play the best of the best every time you step onto the court

TMF
10-20-2012, 10:33 AM
Maybe for you, but it's the only tournament that you can win even with two losses! As for me, IW and Miami are more important than WTFs

It doesn't change the fact that it's bigger than any of the MS. Every players would rather have the WTF.

Gonzo_style
10-20-2012, 10:38 AM
You forgot to mention that you can win IW & Miami, and any other of the scheduled events except WTF, by playing maybe only one seeded player. You can't get away with that in WTF, you got to play the best of the best every time you step onto the court

Not true. In your group you can get three players who qualified for their good results on clay, and you can win those matches, easily!

Prisoner of Birth
10-20-2012, 10:40 AM
The French Open never had 5 of the top 6 withdraw as was the case at the 2005 YEC. Nalbandian the eventual winner was something like the 3rd alternate this year to even play, lol!

That's because the French Open is obviously about five times as big as the WTF. Are you claiming the WTF isn't that important and that players don't care about it?

Prisoner of Birth
10-20-2012, 10:41 AM
Not true. In your group you can get three players who qualified for their good results on clay, and you can win those matches, easily!

If it's that easy, why hasn't Nadal won one yet? And when was the last time 3 claycourt specialists made it into the top 8? Either way, you still need to face 2 absolute top players in the SF and F.

NadalAgassi
10-20-2012, 10:44 AM
That's because the French Open is obviously about five times as big as the WTF. Are you claiming the WTF isn't that important and that players don't care about it?

It is important but has lost value to the 70s and 80s and even 90s. At one point it was considered more important than the Australian and maybe even the French which is obviously far from the case today as you concede "the French Open is obviously about five times as big as the WTF". In 1978 or even 1996 nobody would have said that, in 1996 it would be 2 times more important at most.

Prisoner of Birth
10-20-2012, 10:46 AM
It is important but has lost value to the 70s and 80s and even 90s. At one point it was considered more important than the Australian and maybe even the French which is obviously far from the case today as you concede "the French Open is obviously about five times as big as the WTF". In 1978 or even 1996 nobody would have said that, in 1996 it would be 2 times more important at most.

Would you deny that it's the 5th biggest tournament in a normal Tennis Calendar year? I don't see anybody here suggesting it's half as big as any of the Slams.

NatF
10-20-2012, 10:48 AM
Winning a tournament pitting the top 8 players in the world against each other to see who comes out top is an underrated achievement. As for the comment about facing claycourters, Ferrer is predominantly a clay courter but he was a semi-finalist at the US Open. Does that mean Djokovic's runner up spot is less prestigious?

Prisoner of Birth
10-20-2012, 10:49 AM
Guys still take slams seriously, and everyone can enter those slams. By the end of the year, the top players can only enter the YEC, and by that time many (with already a ton of tennis played under their belt, nursing some injuries and are more battered and bruised) are just looking forward to next year and a bit of a break.

Surely you can't think a tournament at the end of the year means as much as a slam in the beginning of the year?

It is all the more special because the entry is far more select. You need to earn your spot in the WTF by being one of the best players for the past year. That makes it special.

And your last line doesn't make much sense to me. Nobody said the WTF is as important as any Slam. But you seem to be suggesting the AO means more than Wimbledon or the US Open just because it's at the start of the year.

merlinpinpin
10-20-2012, 10:57 AM
The French Open never had 5 of the top 6 withdraw as was the case at the 2005 YEC. Nalbandian the eventual winner was something like the 3rd alternate this year to even play, lol!

No. Just no. When you get your tennis "knowledge" out of wikipedia, at least try and read the damn thing right.

Gonzo_style
10-20-2012, 10:58 AM
If it's that easy, why hasn't Nadal won one yet? And when was the last time 3 claycourt specialists made it into the top 8? Either way, you still need to face 2 absolute top players in the SF and F.

Puerta, Gaudio, Coria and Gonzalez in 2005! Federer beat Gaudio 6:0 6:0 in SF LOL!

merlinpinpin
10-20-2012, 11:00 AM
Puerta, Gaudio, Coria and Gonzalez in 2005! Federer beat Gaudio 6:0 6:0 in SF LOL!

Methinks you forgot Nadal. ;)

Puerta should never have been there, though, so this kind of evens things out, I guess.

NadalAgassi
10-20-2012, 11:04 AM
Would you deny that it's the 5th biggest tournament in a normal Tennis Calendar year? I don't see anybody here suggesting it's half as big as any of the Slams.

I would rate the WTF, Olympics, and Davis Cup all basically equal so the 5th-7th biggest tournament of the year. Davis Cup is similar to the WTF in that it has alot of prestige to what it used to be, while the Olympics has increased as time has gone on. The way I see it currently:

Wimbledon/U.S Open/French Open
-----------
Australian Open

--------------------

David Cup or Fed Cup/WTF or WTA Championships/Olympic
-------------------
Miami/Rome
-------------------
All other Masters or Premier Mandatory



-------------------



Premier Non Mandatory or 500 events


---------------------


Everything Else

Gonzo_style
10-20-2012, 11:05 AM
Methinks you forgot Nadal. ;)

Puerta should never have been there, though, so this kind of evens things out, I guess.

Nadal did not play on TMC 2005.

Prisoner of Birth
10-20-2012, 11:05 AM
Puerta, Gaudio, Coria and Gonzalez in 2005! Federer beat Gaudio 6:0 6:0 in SF LOL!

Gonzalez isn't a CC specialist. Try again.

NadalAgassi
10-20-2012, 11:05 AM
Puerta, Gaudio, Coria and Gonzalez in 2005! Federer beat Gaudio 6:0 6:0 in SF LOL!

Yes that years event had to be the biggest joke in history. I remember watching some of the early matches and being so bored I turned it off and didnt bother again until the final. Thankfully Nalbandian vs Federer saved the event somewhat.

Gonzo_style
10-20-2012, 11:09 AM
Gonzalez isn't a CC specialist. Try again.

Why? You have Puerta, Coria and Gaudio (also Gonzalez's best surface is clay, but nevermind) and you ask for 3 clay courters...:-|

90's Clay
10-20-2012, 11:12 AM
It is all the more special because the entry is far more select. You need to earn your spot in the WTF by being one of the best players for the past year. That makes it special.

And your last line doesn't make much sense to me. Nobody said the WTF is as important as any Slam. But you seem to be suggesting the AO means more than Wimbledon or the US Open just because it's at the start of the year.

The slams are all equally as important nowadays.. Obviously. You dont have multiple players withdrawing from slams like you do the YEC. It was the other poster who mentioned a slam.. I wasn't even talking slams.. I was talking the YEC in general which has lost significant importance over the years.. At least to years before


1. The WTF is at the end of the year, when players are looking for a break
2. Players are withdrawing from the YEC all the time over the years.

The last tournament of REAL importance at the end of the year is the USO IMO.

Prisoner of Birth
10-20-2012, 11:19 AM
Why? You have Puerta, Coria and Gaudio (also Gonzalez's best surface is clay, but nevermind) and you ask for 3 clay courters...:-|

By your definition, Federer's a Claycourt specialist too.

Prisoner of Birth
10-20-2012, 11:20 AM
The slams are all equally as important nowadays.. Obviously. You dont have multiple players withdrawing from slams like you do the YEC. It was the other poster who mentioned a slam.. I wasn't even talking slams.. I was talking the YEC in general which has lost significant importance over the years.. At least to years before


1. The WTF is at the end of the year, when players are looking for a break
2. Players are withdrawing from the YEC all the time over the years.

The last tournament of REAL importance at the end of the year is the USO IMO.

You must think there are just 4 important tournaments.

Gonzo_style
10-20-2012, 11:24 AM
By your definition, Federer's a Claycourt specialist too.

What is Gonzo best surface for you?I'm a big fan of Gonzo and i know that his favourite surface is CLAY!

Gonzo_style
10-20-2012, 11:25 AM
The slams are all equally as important nowadays.. Obviously. You dont have multiple players withdrawing from slams like you do the YEC. It was the other poster who mentioned a slam.. I wasn't even talking slams.. I was talking the YEC in general which has lost significant importance over the years.. At least to years before


1. The WTF is at the end of the year, when players are looking for a break
2. Players are withdrawing from the YEC all the time over the years.

The last tournament of REAL importance at the end of the year is the USO IMO.

You forgot Davis Cup final.

Prisoner of Birth
10-20-2012, 11:26 AM
What is Gonzo best surface for you?I'm a big fan of Gonzo and i know that his favourite surface is CLAY!

Favorite is different from best. I'd say rebound Ace.

Even if Clay were his best surface, he wouldn't be a CC specialist because he's (almost) equally good on Hards too.

Gonzo_style
10-20-2012, 11:33 AM
Favorite is different from best. I'd say rebound Ace.

Even if Clay were his best surface, he wouldn't be a CC specialist because he's (almost) equally good on Hards too.

Because AO 2007? Gonzo said that his best chance for GS title is RG 2009!

You have much more tournaments on HC than CC!

RF20Lennon
10-20-2012, 11:38 AM
Nole 1 W + 2 F + 1 SF
Murray 1 W + 1 F + 1 SF + 1 QF
Nadal 1 W + 1 F + 1 Rd 2
Fed 1 W + 2 SF + 1 QF

It's clear that Djokovic has done much better than anyone else in slams.

I agree nole is far ahead! But Fed has more titles and won a silver and they both are level at masters and GS won! so if either of them win the WTF I think it should go to them

Prisoner of Birth
10-20-2012, 11:44 AM
Because AO 2007? Gonzo said that his best chance for GS title is RG 2009!

You have much more tournaments on HC than CC!

I don't know, from what I see, Gonzalez just isn't a claycourt specialist. For me a claycourt specialist is someone who has success on clay and not even half that success on any other surface. Gonzalez definitely isn't that.

Gonzo_style
10-20-2012, 11:59 AM
I don't know, from what I see, Gonzalez just isn't a claycourt specialist. For me a claycourt specialist is someone who has success on clay and not even half that success on any other surface. Gonzalez definitely isn't that.

Gonzo won 8 tournaments on CC and 3 on HC! Gonzo played AO final, yeah, Nalbandian played W final 2002 , but he isn't a GC specialist!

NadalAgassi
10-20-2012, 12:00 PM
I think Gonzalez is a slow court specialist, being it Roland Garros or the slower courts of the Australian Open or the slow Olympic hard courts he did well on. Definitely not a fast court player. He played the best tennis match of his life in Madrid 2005 vs Ivan Ljubicic and still lost a 6-4, 2-0, 40-15 lead despite playing perfectly, doing nothing wrong, and making only about 2 unforced errors the last set and half. That was his best ever chance to win a Masters too. Even his very best on a fast court is not good enough.

Gonzo_style
10-20-2012, 12:00 PM
I agree nole is far ahead! But Fed has more titles and won a silver and they both are level at masters and GS won! so if either of them win the WTF I think it should go to them

Masters final - 600 ATP points

OG final - 400 ATP points

Gonzo_style
10-20-2012, 12:02 PM
I think Gonzalez is a slow court specialist, being it Roland Garros or the slower courts of the Australian Open or the slow Olympic hard courts he did well on. Definitely not a fast court player. He played the best tennis match of his life in Madrid 2005 vs Ivan Ljubicic and still lost a 6-4, 2-0, 40-15 lead despite playing perfectly, doing nothing wrong, and making only about 2 unforced errors the last set and half. That was his best ever chance to win a Masters too. Even his very best on a fast court is not good enough.

I agree with you.

NadalAgassi
10-20-2012, 12:03 PM
It is funny how Federer fans downplay the value of the Olympics in the past but now an Olympic silver (not gold) is suddenly a big thing in the grand scheme of things.

Anyway back on topic it takes something extreme for the ATP or ITF to go against the year end rankings in their Player of Year decision. With that in mind it is highly unlikely it wont be Djokovic no matter what happens. I dont think Federer will be named Player of the Year no matter what now. Murray if he wins both Paris and WTF has a 30-40% chance, and part of that is sentiment since it is his breakthrough year.

kishnabe
10-20-2012, 12:10 PM
In 2003 slams were split evenly between Roddick, Federer, Ferrero and Agassi. Federer won WTF.

What happened? The members of the ATP voted Roddick "Player of The Year."

Roddick made 3 SF of 4 slams. Federer made only 1 SF.

Roddick had ones of the best Amercian HC season ever......with 2 MS1000, US Open and another obscure 250/500 Amercian title.

Federer may have won YEC. Roddick ended YE Number 1. Roddick only year where he did better than Federer. He deserved it that year unquestionably.

This year....Federer, Djokovic and Murray are in contetion. There is competition.....Djokovic isn't a 100 percent Player of the Year. Murray got OG Gold, Federer is equal in Masters and Slams but more titles won. Plus Silver Medal. WTF could give a few swing votes to Federer.

I believe Djokovic will take the POY......but I won't be suprised if Federer comes out the winner by 1 vote.

Gonzo_style
10-20-2012, 12:13 PM
Roddick made 3 SF of 4 slams. Federer made only 1 SF.

Roddick had ones of the best Amercian HC season ever......with 2 MS1000, US Open and another obscure 250/500 Amercian title.

Federer may have won YEC. Roddick ended YE Number 1. Roddick only year where he did better than Federer. He deserved it that year unquestionably.

This year....Federer, Djokovic and Murray are in contetion. There is competition.....Djokovic isn't a 100 percent Player of the Year. Murray got OG Gold, Federer is equal in Masters and Slams but more titles won. Plus Silver Medal. WTF could give a few swing votes to Federer.

I believe Djokovic will take the POY......but I won't be suprised if Federer comes out the winner by 1 vote.

GS and Masters finals isn't important for you?

NadalAgassi
10-20-2012, 12:28 PM
Looking back in history the only times either the ATP or WTA or ITF (which involves both) overruled a year end #1 was in exteme cases where clearly the wrong person was #1:

1976- Connors and Borg (ok this one wasnt as clearly wrong as the others but the ATP hated Connors, lol)
1977- Connors and Borg
1978- Connors and Borg
1982- McEnroe and Connors
1989- Lendl and Becker
1990- Edberg and Lendl (ITF only, Edberg had two embarassing first round losses in slams this year, even so ATP still went with computer year end #1 Edberg)

1978- Navratilova and Evert (ITF only, this was the only non clear one but Flink who was the main one deciding for ITF is a huge Evert *** kisser)
1994- Graf and Sanchez Vicario (ITF only, despite that Sanchez clearly had a way better year than computer #1 Graf, the WTA still went with Graf)
1999- Hingis and Davenport (WTA only. Both won one slam but Davenport won the YEC, did well at all 4 slams vs Hingis losing 1st round 6-2, 6-0 at Wimbledon, Davenport was 3-0 vs Hingis this year, despite all this ITF still went with computer #1 Hingis)
2000- Venus and Hingis (WTA only, despite that Venus's year thrashed Hingis's, ITF still went with computer #1 Hingis)
2001- Davenport and Capriati
2004- Davenport and Sharapova and Henin (Davenport made no slam finals in either 2001 or 2004 but ended as computer #1)
2005- Davenport and Clijsters
2008- Jankovic and Serena (WTA only. Despite that Serena won U.S Open, Mami, and was Wimbledon finalist, vs computer year end Jankovic only having Miami and U.S Open final losses to Serena, the ITF still went with computer #1 Jankovic)
2010- Wozniacki and Clijsters (WTA only. Despite that Clijsters and Serena both had way better years than Wozniacki the ITF backed computer #1 Wozniacki as Player of Year)
2011- Wozniacki and Kvitova (the most bogus computer year end #1 in history, of course was overruled by all parties and given Player of Year to real and overwhelming 2011 #1 Kvitova, the biggest no brainer of all men or women)


So basically until the WTA went to a ******** new ranking system in 1998 which makes a mockery of the sport, and has forever tarnished any value of the #1 ranking on the WTA for players present, future, and past with their stupidity, it almost never happened.


So only in cases where the #2 or #3 had a WAY better year than the #1 has the #1 not won Player of the Year, and even in some cases where the #1 had a far inferior year to the #2 or #3 as shown above one of the WTA or ITF still often went with the year end #1. Cases where it was even close but with the #2 or #3 having a case for having a better year than the computer #1, which would only be true against Djokovic is one of Murray or Federer wins both Paris or the WTF IMO, not just the WTF, the ITF and WTA/ATP still always went with the computer #1:

1983- McEnroe and a number of others
1995- Sampras and Agassi
1998- Sampras and Rafter
2003- Roddick and Federer

1981- Evert and Austin
1987- Graf and Navratilova
1990- Graf and Seles
1998- Davenport and Hingis

merlinpinpin
10-20-2012, 11:00 PM
Nadal did not play on TMC 2005.

He should have, was there, and withdrew just before the first match (injured himself during training).

Steve0904
10-21-2012, 01:36 AM
It is funny how Federer fans downplay the value of the Olympics in the past but now an Olympic silver (not gold) is suddenly a big thing in the grand scheme of things.

Anyway back on topic it takes something extreme for the ATP or ITF to go against the year end rankings in their Player of Year decision. With that in mind it is highly unlikely it wont be Djokovic no matter what happens. I dont think Federer will be named Player of the Year no matter what now. Murray if he wins both Paris and WTF has a 30-40% chance, and part of that is sentiment since it is his breakthrough year.

Oh there's a good laugh. Almost like how Nadal fans downplay the importance of the YEC you mean? It may have lost some prestige over the years, but it's still the biggest event after the slams.

tudwell
10-21-2012, 01:28 PM
I don't think winning a Davis Cup title should necessarily count in a single player's favor or disfavor. Now, their Davis Cup record absolutely should. It's a big event with a lot on the line. But the event itself is contested between countries and not individual players. Someone could play one match in the final and nothing beforehand, and yet that's the equivalent of winning the WTF or and Olympic Gold to some people? Context is everything.

Steve0904
10-21-2012, 01:33 PM
I don't think winning a Davis Cup title should necessarily count in a single player's favor or disfavor. Now, their Davis Cup record absolutely should. It's a big event with a lot on the line. But the event itself is contested between countries and not individual players. Someone could play one match in the final and nothing beforehand, and yet that's the equivalent of winning the WTF or and Olympic Gold to some people? Context is everything.

I agree. DC is important, but it's a team event even though the matches of course are singles with one doubles match. In the context of Federer and Nadal, Federer is never going to win the DC because he has nobody besides Wawrinka, and he's not good enough as a #2. Spain has 2 of the top 5 in the world, and they could win the DC this year without Nadal.

5555
10-22-2012, 03:28 AM
Roddick made 3 SF of 4 slams. Federer made only 1 SF.

Djokovic made 3 F of 4 slams. Federer made only 1 F.

Roddick had ones of the best Amercian HC season ever......with 2 MS1000, US Open and another obscure 250/500 Amercian title.

It's irrelevant how Roddick's achievements in 2003 compare to other seasons. ATP Player Of The Year Award is simply who had the best year in 2003.

Federer may have won YEC. Roddick ended YE Number 1.

Federer may win YEC, but Djokovic will end up as YE Number 1.

He deserved it that year unquestionably.

If Roddick unquestionably deserved 2003, Djokovic too unquestionably deserved 2012.

Murray got OG Gold

Djokovic has much better results at the slams, much better results at the Masters, will end up as YE Number 1, while Murray will end up as No. 3.

Federer is equal in Masters and Slams but more titles won. Plus Silver Medal.

In 2003 Federer won more titles, had better head to head record and better winning percentage than Roddick...Regarding 2012 and Masters, Djokovic has much better results at the Masters than Federer (Novak won 3 + 3 finals, Roger won 3 + 0 finals).

robbo1970
10-22-2012, 03:36 AM
I guess technically speaking, Djokovic has gone backwards. World number 2 and only 1 slam. Don't get me wrong, I think he's great and a credit to the sport, but although he has done well, he did better last year. If it comes to a vote, I think Murray could do well in terms of what he has acheived over the past 12 months, but I'm not being biased, he's not my favourite player, I'm just trying to look at it logically and without emotion.

Live long and prosper.

5555
10-23-2012, 05:57 AM
If it comes to a vote, I think Murray could do well in terms of what he has acheived over the past 12 months, but I'm not being biased, he's not my favourite player, I'm just trying to look at it logically and without emotion.

What is logic behind claim that if Murray wins WTF he will have better results in 2012 than Djokovic?

- Novak is going to be Year End No. 1 with huge lead over Murray who will finish as No. 3
- Novak is much better at the slams than Murray
- Novak is much better at the Masters than Murray
- Novak is going to have better winning percentage

Murray just better at Olympics and WTF

Unquestionably, Djokovic is more deserving PoY than Murray

Gonzo_style
10-23-2012, 06:32 AM
I guess technically speaking, Djokovic has gone backwards. World number 2 and only 1 slam. Don't get me wrong, I think he's great and a credit to the sport, but although he has done well, he did better last year. If it comes to a vote, I think Murray could do well in terms of what he has acheived over the past 12 months, but I'm not being biased, he's not my favourite player, I'm just trying to look at it logically and without emotion.

Live long and prosper.

So, you think Murray deserves to be number one because he has a better performance this year than last year, and on the other side Djokovic doesn't deserve #1 because he had much better results in 2011? :-?

RF20Lennon
10-23-2012, 06:44 AM
As I've said before Paris and WTF to decide it

batz
10-23-2012, 07:08 AM
What is logic behind claim that if Murray wins WTF he will have better results in 2012 than Djokovic?

- Novak is going to be Year End No. 1 with huge lead over Murray who will finish as No. 3
- Novak is much better at the slams than Murray
- Novak is much better at the Masters than Murray
- Novak is going to have better winning percentage

Murray just better at Olympics and WTF

Unquestionably, Djokovic is more deserving PoY than Murray

I'll have a go at the logic.

Start argument

There were six 'big titles' up for grabs in 2012 - if Murray wins the WTF, he'll have won half of those 'big titles' while the other 3 were shared between 3 players.

Winning percentage and masters wins are all very interesting, but it's the big ones that matter.

End argument.

For the record, I make Novak hot favourite to be POTY and fully expect him to be named as such - but let's not pretend that he's a slam dunk like 2011 or that there isn't a coherent argument for other players.

NadalAgassi
10-23-2012, 08:12 AM
I agree. DC is important, but it's a team event even though the matches of course are singles with one doubles match. In the context of Federer and Nadal, Federer is never going to win the DC because he has nobody besides Wawrinka, and he's not good enough as a #2. Spain has 2 of the top 5 in the world, and they could win the DC this year without Nadal.

Ljubicic single handedly won the Davis Cup for Croatia back in I think it was 2005. If he can do that then Federer certainly could. Wawrinka is not some bum, he was top 10 at one point. Federer can play well in doubles too, he is an Olympic Champion, and there are atleast 2 others who can also play good doubles. He hasnt even really given it a chance, only playing the zone qualifications usually.

5555
10-23-2012, 08:29 AM
Winning percentage and masters wins are all very interesting, but it's the big ones that matter.

Olympics and WTF are all very interesting, but it's performance at the slams that matter:

Novak 1 W + 2 F + 1 SF
Murray 1 W + 1 F + 1 SF + 1 QF

there isn't a coherent argument for other players.

No, there isn't.

batz
10-23-2012, 09:12 AM
Ljubicic single handedly won the Davis Cup for Croatia back in I think it was 2005. If he can do that then Federer certainly could. Wawrinka is not some bum, he was top 10 at one point. Federer can play well in doubles too, he is an Olympic Champion, and there are atleast 2 others who can also play good doubles. He hasnt even really given it a chance, only playing the zone qualifications usually.

That's impossible - did he play doubles alone?

batz
10-23-2012, 09:21 AM
Olympics and WTF are all very interesting, but it's performance at the slams that matter:

Novak 1 W + 2 F + 1 SF
Murray 1 W + 1 F + 1 SF + 1 QF



No, there isn't.

Sigh. I've just made a coherent argument for Murray. You asked what the logic is for Murray being POTY if he wins WTF and I've stated what that logic is. I could probably do the same for Roger if he won WTF. The fact that you don't think it is enough to change your view doesn't mean the argument isn't coherent or lacks logic - it just means that you don't find it to be compelling enough to change your view.

When will Nole be picking up his highest winning percentage and most masters series awards? Answer, he won't be - they are just things you've thrown into the ring to support your position - Olympic Gold and WTF on the other hand are things that pros aspire to at the start of a season. When asked in January, Nole said his 2 major focus items for the year were RG and OG - I've yet to hear him or anyone else say their main aims of the year are 'to win the most masters series' or 'to have the highest winning percentage'. You really think Nole would prefer to have won most Masters Series rather than be Olympic Champion? Me neither. You think Nole would rather have the highest winning % than win the WTF? QED winning OG/WTF > winning most MS/highest winning %.

The fact of the matter is that there were 6 big prizes up for grabs in 2012 - Nole publicly stated which 2 were his priorities and he failed to land either of them. IMO, he's still the POTY - but to suggest he's the only show in town is stretching things.

heninfan99
10-23-2012, 11:37 AM
My mind says it's Federer with all his record breaking this season and return to the top but my gut says Lukas Rosol --his day of greatness will be remembered for eons.

With the 4 slams split evenly, is it agreed that, should any of them win in London next month, that's the tiebreaker???

Gonzo_style
10-23-2012, 12:47 PM
Sigh. I've just made a coherent argument for Murray. You asked what the logic is for Murray being POTY if he wins WTF and I've stated what that logic is. I could probably do the same for Roger if he won WTF. The fact that you don't think it is enough to change your view doesn't mean the argument isn't coherent or lacks logic - it just means that you don't find it to be compelling enough to change your view.

When will Nole be picking up his highest winning percentage and most masters series awards? Answer, he won't be - they are just things you've thrown into the ring to support your position - Olympic Gold and WTF on the other hand are things that pros aspire to at the start of a season. When asked in January, Nole said his 2 major focus items for the year were RG and OG - I've yet to hear him or anyone else say their main aims of the year are 'to win the most masters series' or 'to have the highest winning percentage'. You really think Nole would prefer to have won most Masters Series rather than be Olympic Champion? Me neither. You think Nole would rather have the highest winning % than win the WTF? QED winning OG/WTF > winning most MS/highest winning %.

The fact of the matter is that there were 6 big prizes up for grabs in 2012 - Nole publicly stated which 2 were his priorities and he failed to land either of them. IMO, he's still the POTY - but to suggest he's the only show in town is stretching things.

It's funny how Andy's fans diminishes the value of ​​Masters tournaments this year, previous years that was not been the case. :neutral:

batz
10-23-2012, 01:05 PM
It's funny how Andy's fans diminishes the value of ​​Masters tournaments this year, previous years that was not been the case. :neutral:

No mate - what's funny is how they've taken on great importance this year - the first year in 5 that Murray hasn't bagged at least a couple. In previous years I've been told they don't matter, that the top guys don't try at them, that best of 3 wins don't mean jack.

But now it seems they do matter, that the top guys do try at them and best of 3 wins do mean jack.

Gonzo_style
10-23-2012, 01:17 PM
No mate - what's funny is how they've taken on great importance this year - the first year in 5 that Murray hasn't bagged at least a couple. In previous years I've been told they don't matter, that the top guys don't try at them, that best of 3 wins don't mean jack.

But now it seems they do matter, that the top guys do try at them and best of 3 wins do mean jack.

As for me, Masters tournaments are very important, but unfortunately there are people who value only Grand Slam tournaments...

5555
10-24-2012, 03:36 AM
Sigh. I've just made a coherent argument for Murray. You asked what the logic is for Murray being POTY if he wins WTF and I've stated what that logic is. I could probably do the same for Roger if he won WTF. The fact that you don't think it is enough to change your view doesn't mean the argument isn't coherent or lacks logic - it just means that you don't find it to be compelling enough to change your view.

When will Nole be picking up his highest winning percentage and most masters series awards? Answer, he won't be - they are just things you've thrown into the ring to support your position - Olympic Gold and WTF on the other hand are things that pros aspire to at the start of a season. When asked in January, Nole said his 2 major focus items for the year were RG and OG - I've yet to hear him or anyone else say their main aims of the year are 'to win the most masters series' or 'to have the highest winning percentage'. You really think Nole would prefer to have won most Masters Series rather than be Olympic Champion? Me neither. You think Nole would rather have the highest winning % than win the WTF? QED winning OG/WTF > winning most MS/highest winning %.

The fact of the matter is that there were 6 big prizes up for grabs in 2012 - Nole publicly stated which 2 were his priorities and he failed to land either of them. IMO, he's still the POTY - but to suggest he's the only show in town is stretching things.

The fact of the matter is that there are 4 big tournaments in a tennis' season: Australian Open, French Open, Wimbledon and US Open. They ain't called majors for nothing. Therefore, your argument is not coherent.

batz
10-24-2012, 03:55 AM
The fact of the matter is that there are 4 big tournaments in a tennis' season: Australian Open, French Open, Wimbledon and US Open. They ain't called majors for nothing. Therefore, your argument is not coherent.

In which case, can you explain why your boy publicly prioritised winning the OG over AO, Wimbledon and the USO?

batz
10-24-2012, 03:56 AM
As for me, Masters tournaments are very important, but unfortunately there are people who value only Grand Slam tournaments...

I tend to agree.

stringertom
10-24-2012, 04:09 AM
2012 has been fun due to so many plot twists that have occurred. The AO results did little to change the prevailing belief we were entering a new GOAT era. Then a bit of a hint of what was in the offing...the old guy wins a couple of 500's and a MS1000 (yes, they DO matter....a grand in points is a lot). Then, the blue clay blues sung by the top two, another MS1000 for the old guy, and a resurgent Bull on the red dirt. The split decision on Wimby grass, empty tanks from so much play, and then Murray breaking through for a major.

It's no small wonder we have diverse opinions on who gets POY. There have been at least three sea changes since last WTF. The winner who tacks through the fourth should get it. Right now, Djok leads at the turn but some skilled sailing by either Rogi or Andy may push them across the finish line first. A Paris/WTF double does just that.

Seventeen
10-24-2012, 04:22 AM
2012 has been fun due to so many plot twists that have occurred. The AO results did little to change the prevailing belief we were entering a new GOAT era. Then a bit of a hint of what was in the offing...the old guy wins a couple of 500's and a MS1000 (yes, they DO matter....a grand in points is a lot). Then, the blue clay blues sung by the top two, another MS1000 for the old guy, and a resurgent Bull on the red dirt. The split decision on Wimby grass, empty tanks from so much play, and then Murray breaking through for a major.

It's no small wonder we have diverse opinions on who gets POY. There have been at least three sea changes since last WTF. The winner who tacks through the fourth should get it. Right now, Djok leads at the turn but some skilled sailing by either Rogi or Andy may push them across the finish line first. A Paris/WTF double does just that.

Nicely put.

merlinpinpin
10-24-2012, 04:32 AM
The fact of the matter is that there are 4 big tournaments in a tennis' season: Australian Open, French Open, Wimbledon and US Open. They ain't called majors for nothing. Therefore, your argument is not coherent.

Actually, batz's argument *is* quite coherent, you just fail (or don't want) to recognize it. And should Federer win in London, there will also be a very good case for awarding him the Player of the Year award (which doesn't mean much anyway in the grand scheme of things).

batz
10-24-2012, 04:48 AM
Actually, batz's argument *is* quite coherent, you just fail (or don't want) to recognize it. And should Federer win in London, there will also be a very good case for awarding him the Player of the Year award (which doesn't mean much anyway in the grand scheme of things).

Thank you. He can reject my argument all he likes; that's his prerogative - but he seems to be confusing agreement with my argument with whether or not it is coherent - thanks again for recognising the difference.

5555
10-24-2012, 04:52 AM
In which case, can you explain why your boy publicly prioritised winning the OG over AO, Wimbledon and the USO?

Can you explain why Grand Slam winners recieve 2,000 ATP points and Olympic Gold medalists earn 750?

Actually, batz's argument *is* quite coherent, you just fail (or don't want) to recognize it.

You put your head in the sand. His argument is not coherent.

And should Federer win in London, there will also be a very good case for awarding him the Player of the Year award.

Nonsense.

batz
10-24-2012, 08:07 AM
Can you explain why Grand Slam winners recieve 2,000 ATP points and Olympic Gold medalists earn 750?


You put your head in the sand. His argument is not coherent.



Nonsense.

Your debating skills need a lot of work mate. Just shouting that you are right never made a compelling argument.

Re your question in bold - the answer is that that that this is the number of points the ATP deemed should be allocated to winning the OG. If you think it in any way reflects the level of esteem in which OG is held then you need to speak to Novak and ask him why it was one of his top 2 priorities for the year and why he destroyed every racket in in his bag after losing to Murray. While you're there, have a word with Roger and ask him how many times he's cried after winning a slam semi.

Now - I believe I've answered every question you've asked - how about you return the courtesy and adress the question you've been been ignoring to date:

Why did novak prioritise OG over AO, Wimby and USO? The guy who you seem to support has made public statements that appear to be completely at odds with your position. Is Novak also incoherent?

veroniquem
10-24-2012, 08:34 AM
It's funny how Andy's fans diminishes the value of ​​Masters tournaments this year, previous years that was not been the case. :neutral: Andy has won 2 masters every year since 2008. Surely that means he's gonna win Paris and WTF. He has to, to get the tradition going. Although Olympics is a bit like a master, so just one of the 2 will do!!

Hitman
10-24-2012, 09:34 AM
Andy has won 2 masters every year since 2008. Surely that means he's gonna win Paris and WTF. He has to, to get the tradition going. Although Olympics is a bit like a master, so just one of the 2 will do!!

You are aware that the WTF is NOT a Masters series 100 equalivent. It is the fifth biggest event of the year, and only one step behind a slam event in points and prestiege.

5555
10-25-2012, 02:12 AM
Your debating skills need a lot of work mate. Just shouting that you are right never made a compelling argument.

Re your question in bold - the answer is that that that this is the number of points the ATP deemed should be allocated to winning the OG. If you think it in any way reflects the level of esteem in which OG is held then you need to speak to Novak and ask him why it was one of his top 2 priorities for the year and why he destroyed every racket in in his bag after losing to Murray. While you're there, have a word with Roger and ask him how many times he's cried after winning a slam semi.

Now - I believe I've answered every question you've asked - how about you return the courtesy and adress the question you've been been ignoring to date:

Why did novak prioritise OG over AO, Wimby and USO? The guy who you seem to support has made public statements that appear to be completely at odds with your position. Is Novak also incoherent?

If you think Novak's opinion in any way reflects the level of esteem in which Olympics are held then you need to speak to ATP and ask them why was it decided to award just 750 points for Olimpic gold medalist in contrast to 2,000 points that earn Grand Slam winners.

Steve0904
10-25-2012, 02:52 AM
If you think Novak's opinion in any way reflects the level of esteem in which Olympics are held then you need to speak to ATP and ask them why was it decided to award just 750 points for Olimpic gold medalist in contrast to 2,000 points that earn Grand Slam winners.

Stop thinking about points. The Olympics could be worth no pts, which it always was before 2004, and it would still bigger than a 250 event for example. The Olympics is not as important pts wise, but it is important to the players because they are playing for their COUNTRY. After all, why should a player's opinion matter? He's only playing in the damn tournament. :roll:

batz
10-25-2012, 03:11 AM
If you think Novak's opinion in any way reflects the level of esteem in which Olympics are held then you need to speak to ATP and ask them why was it decided to award just 750 points for Olimpic gold medalist in contrast to 2,000 points that earn Grand Slam winners.

It's not just Novak's opinion though is it. Roger cried after winning his semi, Delpo said winning Bronze was on a par with winning the USO, Murray bounced around the court like Zebedee after winning the gold (in contrast to his reaction to winning his 1st slam), the French guys in the doubles were going absolutely mental when they won their medal.


Six big prizes up for grabs - if Murray wins the WTF he'll have won 3 of them. Whether that is enough to make him POTY is moot - as you are so inelegantly demonstrating - but waving your arms around and saying 'no, i'm right' is a truly incoherent argument.

5555
10-25-2012, 06:58 AM
It's not just Novak's opinion though is it. Roger cried after winning his semi, Delpo said winning Bronze was on a par with winning the USO, Murray bounced around the court like Zebedee after winning the gold (in contrast to his reaction to winning his 1st slam), the French guys in the doubles were going absolutely mental when they won their medal.

You are seriously delusional if you consider their opinion more relevant than that of ATP.

Six big prizes

There are 4 big tournaments (ie Grand Slams).

but waving your arms around and saying 'no, i'm right' is a truly incoherent argument.

I mentioned several times the reason why I'm right.

Steve0904
10-25-2012, 07:19 AM
You are seriously delusional if you consider their opinion more relevant than that of ATP.



There are 4 big tournaments (ie Grand Slams).



I mentioned several times the reason why I'm right.

I'll just use the Ricky Bobby logic on all this. All 4 top players split the GS this year, but who cares if Novak had slightly better results than Murray, after all, "if you're not first you're last." If Novak had won a 2nd slam, I'd give him the POTY without question, but don't pretend like it's not debatable or that only the slams truly matter. As I said, they all won 1 slam each, and again "if you're not first you're last."

batz
10-25-2012, 07:25 AM
I'll just use the Ricky Bobby logic on all this. All 4 top players split the GS this year, but who cares if Novak had slightly better results than Murray, after all, "if you're not first you're last."

I think he's just sore that Murray beat his boy in straights in one of Nole's 2 target events for the year.

The funny thing is that I've never done anything other than agreed with him that Nole is in pole position for POTY - it's also funny that he's gone from 'It's about the slams + MS wins + winning %' to 'it's just about the slams'.

Debater of the year he ain't.

Steve0904
10-25-2012, 07:30 AM
I think he's just sore that Murray beat his boy in straights in one of Nole's 2 target events for the year.

The funny thing is that I've never done anything other than agreed with him that Nole is in pole position for POTY.

I know. You simply presented an argument (a coherent one I might add) as to how Murray could be POTY, but we both agree the Nole is in pole position maybe even regardless of what happens at the WTF, however arguments can be made for all of the top 4 this year.

merlinpinpin
10-25-2012, 07:33 AM
You are seriously delusional if you consider their opinion more relevant than that of ATP.

I mentioned several times the reason why I'm right.

I'm not even going to mention what I think about your open-mindedness... :roll:

The only point you make is that it's all about points. However, checking the history of the PotY award will show you that this is not always the case. It almost always is, yes. But it's not 100% certain. Lendl's 1989 was way superior to what Becker produced this year, point-wise and title-wise (he won 10 tournaments to Becker's 5), but the voters went for the Wimbledon-US Open double above every other consideration.

You put your head in the sand. His argument is not coherent.

Three out of six, and nobody else getting more than one? You can bet it is.

Nonsense.

You're just trying to reassure yourself. In reality, the combination of Wimbledon + WTF + most titles won (on every surface/condition to boot) + #1 at 31 + more than 300 weeks at #1 would most likely trump Djokovic's series of losses in big finals, as impressive as they are point-wise.

Gonzo_style
10-25-2012, 07:34 AM
Does anyone know whether Murray plays in Paris or not?

batz
10-25-2012, 07:41 AM
Does anyone know whether Murray plays in Paris or not?

He was doing light trainig at the NTC on Tuesday, but I wouldn't be surprised if he withdrew to concentrate on the WTF.

Gonzo_style
10-25-2012, 07:44 AM
He was doing light trainig at the NTC on Tuesday, but I wouldn't be surprised if he withdrew to concentrate on the WTF.

Thanks, we'll probably know tomorrow.

beast of mallorca
10-25-2012, 07:45 AM
He was doing light trainig at the NTC on Tuesday, but I wouldn't be surprised if he withdrew to concentrate on the WTF.

An outsider (not in the big 4) might snatch Paris. Just because the top 3 won't be 'in' to it and instead will try and focus on the WTF.

Gonzo_style
10-25-2012, 07:53 AM
An outsider (not in the big 4) might snatch Paris. Just because the top 3 won't be 'in' to it and instead will try and focus on the WTF.

May happen that Tsonga and JMDP doesn't play in Paris, so it would be a great opportunity for any player!

batz
10-25-2012, 07:58 AM
An outsider (not in the big 4) might snatch Paris. Just because the top 3 won't be 'in' to it and instead will try and focus on the WTF.

Agreed - Paris has always bee nan opportunity for 'the others' to bag an MS. It's no coincidence that the likes of Henman, Rusedski, Tsonga and Berdych have all won their only MS in Paris.

Gonzo_style
10-25-2012, 08:06 AM
Agreed - Paris has always bee nan opportunity for 'the others' to bag an MS. It's no coincidence that the likes of Henman, Rusedski, Tsonga and Berdych have all won their only MS in Paris.

Yes, also Robin Soderling.

batz
10-25-2012, 09:10 AM
Yes, also Robin Soderling.

Good point - him too.

Paullaconte1
10-26-2012, 12:32 AM
Djokovic is the player of the year...

But Federer achieving the 7th Wimbledon, the world no.1... the +300 weeks as world no.1... if he wins his (6th) WTF...you know at his tennis age.... I would go more for Roger

Murray still very very far from these 2 players (season wise)

timnz
10-26-2012, 12:50 AM
Djokovic is the player of the year...

But Federer achieving the 7th Wimbledon, the world no.1... the +300 weeks as world no.1... if he wins his (6th) WTF...you know at his tennis age.... I would

If would be Rogers 7th WTF

batz
10-26-2012, 01:20 AM
Djokovic is the player of the year...

But Federer achieving the 7th Wimbledon, the world no.1... the +300 weeks as world no.1... if he wins his (6th) WTF...you know at his tennis age.... I would go more for Roger

Murray still very very far from these 2 players (season wise)

Can I point out that it's player of the year - of the four things you list, 2 of them span more than a year.

5555
10-27-2012, 06:04 AM
but who cares if Novak had slightly better results than Murray

Novak had much better results than Murray.

but don't pretend like it's not debatable

It's not debatable. Djokovic is the player of the year even if Federer or Murray win WTF.

As I said, they all won 1 slam each, and again "if you're not first you're last."

It's not just how many slams you won, it's also about your overall results at the slams (finals, semifinals etc.)

I think he's just sore that Murray beat his boy in straights in one of Nole's 2 target events for the year.

You lost the argument. How do you cope with that? Posting pathetic comments.

it's also funny that he's gone from 'It's about the slams + MS wins + winning %' to 'it's just about the slams'.

When did I say it's just about slams?

The only point you make is that it's all about points. However, checking the history of the PotY award will show you that this is not always the case. It almost always is, yes. But it's not 100% certain. Lendl's 1989 was way superior to what Becker produced this year, point-wise and title-wise (he won 10 tournaments to Becker's 5), but the voters went for the Wimbledon-US Open double above every other consideration.

When did I say that the PoY award is all about points?

Three out of six, and nobody else getting more than one? You can bet it is.

I'll repeat again: there are 4 big tournaments.

You're just trying to reassure yourself. In reality, the combination of Wimbledon + WTF + most titles won (on every surface/condition to boot) + #1 at 31 + more than 300 weeks at #1 would most likely trump Djokovic's series of losses in big finals, as impressive as they are point-wise.

Federer had 300 weeks at No. 1 in 2012? "Player Of The Year" award has nothing to do with the results before 2012.

batz
10-27-2012, 06:10 AM
Novak had much better results than Murray.



It's not debatable. Djokovic is the player of the year even if Federer or Murray win WTF.



It's not just how many slams you won, it's also about your overall results at the slams (finals, semifinals etc.)



You lost the argument. How do you cope with that? Posting pathetic comments.



When did I say it's just about slams?



When did I say that the PoY award is all about points?



I'll repeat again: there are 4 big tournaments.



Federer had 300 weeks at No. 1 in 2012? "Player Of The Year" award has nothing to do with the results before 2012.

Only in your incredibly closed mind have you won an argument mate - I don't see people queueing up to agree with you - in fact, I don't see anyone. Most people seem to be saying that Noel is in pole position but there's still tennis to be played.

Looks like you answered your own question there. You're not very good at this 'arguing' malarky, are you mate.

5555
10-27-2012, 06:23 AM
Only in your incredibly closed mind have you won an argument mate

http://naturalmath.wikispaces.com/file/view/head_in_sand_2.gif/191056960/head_in_sand_2.gif

I don't see people queueing up to agree with you - in fact, I don't see anyone. Most people seem to be saying that Noel is in pole position but there's still tennis to be played.

Your comment is argumentum ad populum. If you don't know what argumentum ad populum is, go to Google http://www.google.co.uk/#hl=en&gs_nf=3&pq=appeal%20to%20popularity&cp=13&gs_id=16&xhr=t&q=argumentum+ad+populum&pf=p&biw=1680&bih=897&sclient=psy-ab&oq=argument+ad+p&gs_l=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&fp=f7f26bd304355f44&bpcl=35466521

Looks like you answered your own question there.

Can you explain how I answered my question?

You're not very good at this 'arguing' malarky, are you mate.

Far better than you.

batz
10-27-2012, 06:38 AM
http://naturalmath.wikispaces.com/file/view/head_in_sand_2.gif/191056960/head_in_sand_2.gif



Your argument is argument ad populum? Go to Google http://www.google.co.uk/#hl=en&gs_nf=3&pq=appeal%20to%20popularity&cp=13&gs_id=16&xhr=t&q=argumentum+ad+populum&pf=p&biw=1680&bih=897&sclient=psy-ab&oq=argument+ad+p&gs_l=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&fp=f7f26bd304355f44&bpcl=35466521



Can you explain how I answered my question?



Far better than you.

Probably not - because it is becoming clear that you lack the faculties (an open mind and a lack of a superiority complex) to comprehend whatever points I or anyone else might make.

You feel that Noel would be POTY no matter what happens in London - others have a different opinion to you (because it is just a matter of opinion - there are no specified criteria for determining POTY). That's the bottom line. You can howl about how right you are until the cows come home - it still won't make you right anywhere other than in your own mind.

Please feel free now to re-confirm your previous position that you are right, dammit. That only your opinion is valid, and that there is no argument to be made for any other player - after all you don't have anything to lose; you can hardly appear to be any more self-righteous than you already have.

5555
10-27-2012, 06:47 AM
Probably not - because it is becoming clear that you lack the faculties (an open mind and a lack of a superiority complex) to comprehend whatever points I or anyone else might make.

You feel that Noel would be POTY no matter what happens in London - others have a different opinion to you (because it is just a matter of opinion - there are no specified criteria for determining POTY). That's the bottom line. You can howl about how right you are until the cows come home - it still won't make you right anywhere other than in your own mind.

Please feel free now to re-confirm your previous position that you are right, that only your opinion is valid, and that there is no argument to be made for any other player - after all you don't have anything to lose; you can hardly appear to be any more self-righteous than you already have.

You said it's a fact that there are 6 big tournaments. Is it matter of opinion whether there are 6 or 4 big tournaments?

Sabratha
10-27-2012, 06:48 AM
Djokovic pretty much has it locked up by holding #1 at the end of the year.

batz
10-27-2012, 06:58 AM
You said it's a fact that there are 6 big tournaments. Is it matter of opinion whether there are 6 or 4 big tournaments?

Oh FFS mate - post where I said it was a fact and I'll donate £100 to a charity of your choice. It is my opinion that there are 5 big prizes on offer in a normal tennis year and 6 in an Olympic year. I've never stated that is is some kind of self evident truth or that anyone who disagrees with me 'sticking heir head in the sand' - I'm not that self righteous. For absolute clarity, I'm not saying WTF and OG are on a par with the slams - I'm saying they are part of the group of 'big prizes'.

To reiterate - we have different opinions. If you cannot deal with that then I suggest you start your own tennis messageboard where you are the mod and only people who agree with you are allowed to post.

I think it's now best that we end our little chat - I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed man.

5555
10-27-2012, 07:03 AM
Oh FFS mate - post where I said it was a fact and I'll donate £100 to a charity of your choice.

Here.......

The fact of the matter is that there were 6 big prizes up for grabs in 2012

batz
10-27-2012, 07:11 AM
Here.......

OK - I should have said it was my opinion. I shouldn't have said it was a fact - it's not. Of course, whether or not it is a matter of fact or opinion has no bearing on your central point that Noel is already POTY no matter what happens in London; that's still just your opinion - all it shows is that you were right that I stated it was a fact that there were 6 big prizes up for grabs.

Which charity would you like me to donate to?

tusharlovesrafa
10-27-2012, 07:14 AM
OK - I should have said it was my opinion. I shouldn't have said it was a fact - it's not. Of course, whether or not it is a matter of fact or opinion has no bearing on your central point that Noel is already POTY no matter what happens in London; that's still just your opinion - all it shows it that you were right that I stated it was a fact that there were 6 big prizes up for grabs.

Which charity would you like me to donate to?
What the hell is "POTY"? I have seen you use this word umpteen number of time.

batz
10-27-2012, 07:15 AM
What the hell is "POTY"? I have seen you use this word umpteen number of time.

Player of the Year Tushy.

5555
10-27-2012, 07:21 AM
Of course, whether or not it is a matter of fact or opinion has no bearing on your central point that Noel is already POTY no matter what happens in London; that's still just your opinion - all it shows it that you were right that I stated it was a fact that there were 6 big prizes up for grabs.

It's not a fact that Tsonga is not an all-time great, but common sense says that Tsonga is not an all-time great. It's not a fact that Djokovic is PoY no matter what happens at WTF, but common sense says that Novak is Poy no matter what happens at WTF.

Which charity would you like me to donate to?

http://www.daily-sun.com/details_yes_17-10-2012_Djokovic-inspired-by-$10-mn-charity-tie-up_294_1_4_1_22.html

The Bawss
10-27-2012, 07:24 AM
Haha, I'm just chiming in for the catastrophic ownage. Lovely.

batz
10-27-2012, 07:38 AM
It's not a fact that Tsonga is not an all-time great, but common sense says that Tsonga is not an all-time great. It's not a fact that Djokovic is PoY no matter what happens at WTF, but common sense says that Novak is Poy no matter what happens at WTF.



http://www.daily-sun.com/details_yes_17-10-2012_Djokovic-inspired-by-$10-mn-charity-tie-up_294_1_4_1_22.html

Whether or not Novak is likely to be named POTY is not disputed - from my first response I have agreed with you on that. What was (and still is) disputed is whether or not an argument could be made for another player if that other player won WTF. Your opinion on that is still just your opinion. Me being hoist by my own petard on what I did or didn't say has no bearing on that.


There doesn't seem to be a mechanism to donate to clothesforsmiles - I don't think it's that kind of programme.

http://clothesforsmiles.uniqlo.com/en/index.php?lang=en
Is there something else?

batz
10-27-2012, 07:42 AM
Haha, I'm just chiming in for the catastrophic ownage. Lovely.


How unlike you to be taking joy from the perceived misfortunes of others. What a delightful creature you are.

Anyhoo - I hate to burst your masturbatory bubble - but I usually make a quarterly donation anyway - 5555 will get to choose where one third of this quarter's donation will go.

The Bawss
10-27-2012, 07:47 AM
How unlike you to be taking joy from the perceived misfortunes of others. What a delightful creature you are.

Anyhoo - I hate to burst your masturbatory bubble - but I usually make a quarterly donation anyway - 5555 will get to choose where one third of this quarter's donation will go.

I'm happy that this experience will hopefully knock down your self-righteousness on this forum a peg or two and all for a good cause. It's a win-win.

5555
10-27-2012, 07:49 AM
What was (and still is) disputed is whether or not an argument could be made for another player if that other player won WTF. Your opinion on that is still just your opinion.

Claim that Tsonga is not an all-time great is just opinion, but common sense says that he is not an all-time great. The same logic goes for Djokovic and PoY in 2012...

Is there something else?

http://www.savethechildren.org.uk/

batz
10-27-2012, 07:56 AM
I'm happy that this experience will hopefully knock down your self-righteousness on this forum a peg or two and all for a good cause. It's a win-win.

Couldn't agree more, I've certainly learned to be clearer when speaking figuratively, but to re-iterate; the day you stop taking joy from the sorrow of others is the day you can lecture me about character - because on that day you'll have credible place to lecture me from.

batz
10-27-2012, 07:58 AM
Claim that Tsonga is not an all-time great is just opinion, but common sense says that he is not an all-time great. The same logic goes for Djokovic and PoY in 2012...



http://www.savethechildren.org.uk/

To repeat - that Noel is in pole position to win POTY is not in dispute - please stop trying to refute points I haven't made.

An excellent choice of charity.

batz
10-27-2012, 08:09 AM
The UK site only accepted paypal which I don't have - so I donated 160 US Dollars at the global site. I can't psot a screengrab as it shows my name and address - but this is a cur and paste from my receipt. Feel free to check the amount using the reference ID number at the bottom left


Global Action Fund
Confirmation
Your Confirmation Information

10/27/2012 09:05 AM (PT)
Save the Children Federation, Inc


United Kingdom

Thank you for your generous donation to Save the Children's Global Action Fund.

You will receive an official receipt that you can keep for your taxes from twebster@savechildren.org.

Email twebster@savechildren.org or call 1 (800) 728-3843 if you need help or have any questions.

Spread the word: By telling your friends and family on facebook and twitter about Save the Children





Corporate Matching: Find out if your employer will double your gift.



Sponsor a Child







Important Tax Notice: Federal income tax law requires us to inform you that no goods or services were provided to you in return for your gift and that, therefore, the full amount of your gift is deductible for federal income tax purposes. Please keep a copy of this email as a record of your donation to Save the Children Federation, Inc.

You are a true friend to children in need. And you have my heartfelt thanks.

Carolyn Miles
President & CEO

Save the Children
54 Wilton Road
Westport , CT 06880
1-800-728-3843 www.savethechildren.org

The following summarizes your contribution:
Payment Amount: $160.00
Reference ID: 142683253


Save the Children Federation, Inc contact information:
Email Address: twebster@savechildren.org
.

In fiscal year 2011, 89.1% of all expenditures, including donated media, went to program services. Without donated media, program expenditures would average 90.7%. Percentages are an average of our programs worldwide; the percentage spent in any particular program may vary.
Privacy Policy | Legal Disclosure | Terms of Use | Financial Responsibility | Contact Us | Site Map
© 2012 Save the Children | 1.800.728.3843 | 54 Wilton Road, Westport, CT 06880
Save the Children Federation, Inc. is a 501(c)(3) organization. Gifts are deductible to the full extent allowable under IRS regulations.

The Bawss
10-27-2012, 08:50 AM
Couldn't agree more, I've certainly learned to be clearer when speaking figuratively, but to re-iterate; the day you stop taking joy from the sorrow of others is the day you can lecture me about character - because on that day you'll have credible place to lecture me from.

What sorrow? One might think that you would be feeling all fuzzy and warm inside after having given money to kids in poor countries. I guess not.

Steve0904
10-27-2012, 10:43 AM
You said it's a fact that there are 6 big tournaments. Is it matter of opinion whether there are 6 or 4 big tournaments?

It is a matter of opinion. However I think you will find that the large majority of people consider the WTF and Olympics as "big" events. Of course for the purposes of your argument you've decided to regard them as "small," and that's perfectly fine. The fact (or is it matter of opinion now?), however, is that an argument can be made for Murray or Federer to be POTY as well as Novak. Nadal is probably out of the running now since he won't play Paris or the WTF. Everybody agrees that Novak is the frontrunner for POTY, but again, arguments can be made for Murray, and Fed. That is a fact, but you, in your infinite wisdom will call it a matter of opinion because nobody can be POTY except your precious Novak.

It's pointless arguing with you obviously, but I'll finish with this: Think about last year. 2011 was a year where it truly didn't matter what happened after the USO. It was absolutely indisputable that Novak was POTY, so therefore nobody could make any credible arguments as to awarding POTY to anybody else. It is disputable this year, but of course you will call that a matter of opinion, and keep believing that the only opinion that matters is your own. That's all anybody is saying. Nobody is trying to take POTY away from your precious Novak.

Ms Nadal
10-27-2012, 12:08 PM
I think Djok s the player of the year. Rafa could have had a great year until that Wimby match with Rosol :(. Up till that point I was very happy with Rafa's performances and he was playing well and building up his confidence momentum. Then WHAM BANG! ROSOL!.

5555
10-30-2012, 04:37 AM
However I think you will find that the large majority of people consider the WTF and Olympics as "big" events.

Is this your argument in support of claim that WTF and Olympics are big tournaments?

The fact (or is it matter of opinion now?), however, is that an argument can be made for Murray or Federer to be POTY as well as Novak.

Arguments for Federer and Murray are too weak to say that it's questionable who is PoY.

NatF
10-30-2012, 04:40 AM
Djokovic has had a significantly better year than anyone else, however if Federer beats him in straights and dominates the WTF I think Federer will have a strong case. As it stands Nole deserves it. They're my two favorites so I'm not unhappy either way.

Magnus
10-30-2012, 04:47 AM
Nole or Murray.

NDFM
10-30-2012, 04:58 AM
Djokovic has done more than well this year but I hope Murray gets Player of the Year, this has been his breakthrough year

Sabratha
10-30-2012, 05:02 AM
Djokovic has done more than well this year but I hope Murray gets Player of the Year, this has been his breakthrough year
Did Djokovic get Player of the Year 2008?

NatF
10-30-2012, 05:02 AM
Murray did virtually nothing up to Wimbledon. He might be incontention for player of the last 6 months but not player of the year.

NDFM
10-30-2012, 05:15 AM
Did Djokovic get Player of the Year 2008?

Nadal got Player of the Year in 2008 but he won 2 slams and the Olympic gold medal. With the grand slams split between the top 4 this year.... POTY who knows (Nadal is definitely not getting it)

batz
10-30-2012, 05:26 AM
Murray did virtually nothing up to Wimbledon. He might be incontention for player of the last 6 months but not player of the year.

Djokovic has won 2 MS and a 500 since Wimbledon and is 1-3 versus the rest of the top 3 - he might be in contention for player of the first six months.......

NatF
10-30-2012, 05:37 AM
Djokovic atleast went deep in all tournaments since Wimbledon. Murray has Brisbane, a Gold Medal and the US Open to his name this year. The fewest tournaments of all 3 them. He also disappeared during the clay court swing. He's not the player of the year, he's not been consistant enough.

If Murray wins the WTF it could swing POTY to him IMO but only because I still view the WTF as a big and prestigious tournament.

batz
10-30-2012, 05:40 AM
Djokovic atleast went deep in all tournaments since Wimbledon. Murray has Brisbane, a Gold Medal and the US Open to his name this year. The fewest tournaments of all 3 them. He also disappeared during the clay court swing. He's not the player of the year, he's not been consistant enough.

If Murray wins the WTF it could swing POTY to him IMO but only because I still view the WTF as a big and prestigious tournament.

:) I'm only messing with you mate - if you look back on the thread you'll see that I agree wholeheaterdly that Nole is in pole position for POTY.

tennisenthusiast
11-11-2012, 01:37 PM
IMHO, it should be Federer for reclaiming wimbledon, #1 spot and reaching WTF finals.

If he wins tomorrow, he is my POTY.

Sabratha
11-11-2012, 01:38 PM
Thing is, Djokovic is a hard one to pass - both in playing the game and his results this year.

forzamilan90
11-11-2012, 01:42 PM
Whoever wins tomorrow is player of the year

Sabratha
11-11-2012, 01:46 PM
Whoever wins tomorrow is player of the year
It's still a toss up. 1) Djokovic is ending the year at #1 having made the finals of three majors, winning one of them and losing in the semifinals of another.

2) Federer had a miracle run at Wimbledon, losing in the semifinals of the French Open and the Australian Open and only made the quarterfinals of the US Open.

I'd still pick Djokovic over Federer this year, but it's as close as it can get.

Tennis_Hands
11-11-2012, 01:51 PM
If the general cosistency is the measuring stick, then Djokovic wins.

If the number of big titles is deciding, then, whoever of the two wins the WTF final wins.

forzamilan90
11-11-2012, 01:57 PM
It's still a toss up. 1) Djokovic is ending the year at #1 having made the finals of three majors, winning one of them and losing in the semifinals of another.

2) Federer had a miracle run at Wimbledon, losing in the semifinals of the French Open and the Australian Open and only made the quarterfinals of the US Open.

I'd still pick Djokovic over Federer this year, but it's as close as it can get.

Yes very close, but considering they both have 1 majors, 3 masters, and whoever wins tomorrow gets a WTF title, I figure it's a good way of saying who did better. Granted Djokovic did get to more slam finals, but just Fed getting on that path to reclaiming number 1 (considering how awesome Djoko was last year) is impressive. Very close though. If Fed wins tomorrow, even with Djoko as number 1, I'd say Fed's year was more impressive (especially considering his age and circumstances)

NatF
11-11-2012, 02:10 PM
Depends on whether winning big titles matters or going deep in slams/masters do. I think it's a mix of both. If Federer wins tomorrow he'll lead Djokovic in titles and in the h2h this year. Important stats. But personally this year I feel Djokovic has been the one to beat, he's gone deeper and been more consistant in the tournaments. I think the number 1 ranking is a good indicator of the best player of the year. It'll be close though.

Murray is officially out of contention though...

timnz
11-11-2012, 02:15 PM
[QUOTE=Gonzo_style;6965670]Maybe for you, but it's the only tournament that you can win even with two losses! QUOTE]

And that has never happened in the more than 40 year history of the tournament.

stringertom
11-11-2012, 02:23 PM
Tomorrow is my tiebreaker. Today eliminated Murray from this talk. So it's down to Fed or Djok. If Rogi wins, he will have beaten Djok at a major, a MS1000 and the WTF...a nice triumvirate of venues. To have reclaimed #1 from being so far behind is also ammo for my vote. If Djok wins, he's the obvious choice for all the reasons everyone has already listed.

Good luck to both of them! This is the way it should be decided...#1 vs #2! it took two great comebacks today to achieve the matchup we deserve.

sonicare
11-11-2012, 02:39 PM
Let me ask you guys a question

Would you rather win WTF or get to a slam final?

What about a masters 1000 win vs a slam final?

What about win a 500 tournament vs slam final?

win a 250 vs a slam final?

Prisoner of Birth
11-11-2012, 03:07 PM
Let me ask you guys a question

Would you rather win WTF or get to a slam final?

What about a masters 1000 win vs a slam final?

What about win a 500 tournament vs slam final?

win a 250 vs a slam final?

Slam-final for all, but the WTF is tempting.

Sabratha
11-11-2012, 03:11 PM
Let me ask you guys a question

Would you rather win WTF or get to a slam final?

What about a masters 1000 win vs a slam final?

What about win a 500 tournament vs slam final?

win a 250 vs a slam final?
Stupid question, slam final.

World Beater
11-11-2012, 03:15 PM
Novak clearly deserves #1...and his consistency in big tournaments shows this through all the points he has earned.

BUt...

If federer wins tomorrow - he POTY. 31yrs, wins wimbledon, back to #1 and then owns major rivals at WTF once again.

No need to give two awards for the same thing

POTY doesnt have to be #1 in the world. #1 = objective pt system which rewards consistency.

POTY - Impressive, outstanding player of the year..could be someone overcoming the odds or having a breakthrough run.

Prisoner of Birth
11-11-2012, 03:18 PM
Novak clearly deserves #1...and his consistency in big tournaments shows this through all the points he has earned.

BUt...

If federer wins tomorrow - he POTY. 31yrs, wins wimbledon, back to #1 and then owns major rivals at WTF once again.

No need to give two awards for the same thing

POTY doesnt have to be #1 in the world. #1 = objective pt system which rewards consistency.

POTY - Impressive, outstanding player of the year..could be someone overcoming the odds or having a breakthrough run.

That's an interesting and agreeable way of looking at it.

RF20Lennon
11-11-2012, 03:39 PM
Slam-final for all, but the WTF is tempting.

Slam final but the WTF is HIGHLY tempting

Sabratha
11-11-2012, 03:48 PM
Novak clearly deserves #1...and his consistency in big tournaments shows this through all the points he has earned.

BUt...

If federer wins tomorrow - he POTY. 31yrs, wins wimbledon, back to #1 and then owns major rivals at WTF once again.

No need to give two awards for the same thing

POTY doesnt have to be #1 in the world. #1 = objective pt system which rewards consistency.

POTY - Impressive, outstanding player of the year..could be someone overcoming the odds or having a breakthrough run.
But consistency means rewards. I.E; POTY.

Steve0904
11-11-2012, 03:53 PM
In short I agree with World Beater. To me the winner tomorrow is the POTY. And to answer sonicare's question, I'd take a slam final over all BUT winning the WTF.

mattennis
11-11-2012, 04:00 PM
It doesn't matter.

To win the WTF tomorrow is as great an achievement that anything else is irrelevant right now.

Both players want it badly, and it is not for any POTY award.

The WTF is the fifth most important title of the year and has an enormous prestige.

The Nº1 player of the year is Djokovic no matter what, but that is irrelevant right now. Tomorrow will be a great battle.

RF-17-GOAT
11-11-2012, 04:06 PM
Whoever wins tomorrow imho.

kishnabe
11-11-2012, 04:15 PM
This is so awesome......we will know tommorow!

timnz
11-11-2012, 04:44 PM
Let me ask you guys a question

Would you rather win WTF or get to a slam final?


The official ATP answer to your question is that the WTF is bigger.

WTF winner wins 1500 points or 1300 points (depending if they were unbeaten or lost 1 match in the Round Robin phase - remember no one in 43 years of the WTF has lost more than one match and won the tournament) - whereas a Slam Finalist wins 1200 points.

Hence 1500 or 1300 > 1200 - therefore WTF wins over Slam final.

(Having said that making Slam finals is very impressive - and a great achievement in itself).

World Beater
11-11-2012, 05:20 PM
But consistency means rewards. I.E; POTY.

Not necessarily.

The ATP already gives an award for the best player of the year.

It is called ATP YEAR END #1.

This award has already been won by djokovic.

POTY could be the same player or may be someone else.

But it rewards something more subjective than ATP YE #1. For many people what federer has done at 31 is more impressive than what djokovic has done at 24.

That could be one reason why POTY could be federer. But for me he only wins this if he wins tomorrow.

Otherwise djokovic is POTY for me.

The bottom line is there is no clear cut criteria for POTY but for ATP YE #1, there obviously is one...

NadalAgassi
11-11-2012, 05:43 PM
No way Djokovic wont sweep the Player of Year awards even if Federer wins IMO. They only override official rankings if there is a major difference in the prestige or some value of the success, which is not the case here, especialy not in Federer's favor. An example of this is Serena in the WTA this year who will likely sweep the Player of the Year awards despite her year end #3, and Kvitova over Wozniacki last year since Kvitova had a WAY better year despite Wozniacki's bizarre computer #1 rank. If Federer wins the WTF he will have the same # of Masters as Djokovic, weaker slam performances, 2 less slam finals, and the WTF title. At best a roughly equal (probably still inferior) performance. Absolutely nothing that would be close to overruling the computer rankings for Player of the Year. Meanwhile if Djokovic wins he would be way ahead of Federer on the year.

Bobby Jr
11-11-2012, 05:52 PM
Winning majors means everything here - so they're all on an even keel in that respect.

Being runner or up a semi-finalists in a major means nothing compared to winning an Olympic gold medal. At this stage the Olympic gold is worth as much as another major imo - at least in kudos when considering the player of the year award. Murray has two ticks this year in that respect (Olympic Gold, USO) - Djokovic, Federer and Nadal only one each.

Imo, if Federer wins the WTF then Murray should be player of the year... Even though the WTF is worth more in points the Olympics is a grander achievement this year - because it was Murray who won it. It's been his breakthrough year and the peak of his career. The same can't be said for Djokovic or Federer.

kaku
11-11-2012, 06:03 PM
It all depends on what the ATP thinks is second most valuable to the majors

timnz
11-11-2012, 06:11 PM
It all depends on what the ATP thinks is second most valuable to the majors

Well we already have the answer to that. The ATP themselves have already outlined what they see is second most valuable to the majors.

WTF - 1500 or 1300 points (depending on whether the winner lost 0 or 1 round robin match)

Grand Slam runner up - 1200 points

Olympics Win - 750 points

It is the ATP's own ranking system.

Bobby Jr
11-11-2012, 06:54 PM
It is the ATP's own ranking system.
In points maybe, but not in kudos...

No-one goes down in history for being a runner up at a major compared to winning an Olympic gold medal.

veroniquem
11-11-2012, 06:58 PM
Not necessarily.

The ATP already gives an award for the best player of the year.

It is called ATP YEAR END #1.

This award has already been won by djokovic.

POTY could be the same player or may be someone else.

But it rewards something more subjective than ATP YE #1. For many people what federer has done at 31 is more impressive than what djokovic has done at 24.

That could be one reason why POTY could be federer. But for me he only wins this if he wins tomorrow.

Otherwise djokovic is POTY for me.

The bottom line is there is no clear cut criteria for POTY but for ATP YE #1, there obviously is one...


Of course if Djoko wins WTF, then there's not even a possible discussion about Djoko being POTY since he already did better than Fed in masters and in slams. It would be his 6th title of the year too.

timnz
11-11-2012, 07:15 PM
Of course if Djoko wins WTF, then there's not even a possible discussion about Djoko being POTY since he already did better than Fed in masters and in slams. It would be his 6th title of the year too.

But isn't what people are debating - what if Federer wins the WTF? Federer will then have 2 of the top 5 titles, whereas nadal, djokovic and murray will only have 1 each of the top 5 titles.

timnz
11-11-2012, 07:18 PM
In points maybe, but not in kudos...

No-one goes down in history for being a runner up at a major compared to winning an Olympic gold medal.

Yes Olympics has kudos, but we can't take it too far. After all, it is only the number 15 event of the year in terms of points won.

Tennis_Hands
11-11-2012, 11:39 PM
If Federer wins the WTF he will have the same # of Masters as Djokovic, weaker slam performances, 2 less slam finals, and the WTF title. At best a roughly equal (probably still inferior) performance. Absolutely nothing that would be close to overruling the computer rankings for Player of the Year. Meanwhile if Djokovic wins he would be way ahead of Federer on the year.

It all depends on what you use as a measuring tool.

If it is a general consistency (weeks at #1, overall performance) Djokovic is #1 hands down.

If the number of titles/big titles is a measuring tool, then, I cannot see how Djokovic is #1, in case that Federer wins the WTF.

However, I cannot but laugh at your unconscious drive to bring Federer down, seen by the bolded part of your post. Factoring in the same thing twice, are we?

Prisoner of Birth
11-11-2012, 11:44 PM
It all depends on what you use as a measuring tool.

If it is a general consistency (weeks at #1, overall performance) Djokovic is #1 hands down.

If the number of titles/big titles is a measuring tool, then, I cannot see how Djokovic is #1, in case that Federer wins the WTF.

However, I cannot but laugh at your unconscious drive to bring Federer down, seen by the bolded part of your post. Factoring in the same thing twice, are we?

That's the NA we know and love to hate. And did I mention his fail-predictions? :)

merlinpinpin
11-12-2012, 12:41 AM
I'll repeat again: there are 4 big tournaments.


Let's play your game, here--is that a fact or an opinion?

merlinpinpin
11-12-2012, 12:44 AM
Stupid question, slam final.

Not that stupid. I would clearly take a Masters (ie WTF) win over a slam final. Not an M1000's final, though.

merlinpinpin
11-12-2012, 12:46 AM
But consistency means rewards. I.E; POTY.

So Azarenka is your WTA player of the year, right?

cc0509
11-12-2012, 03:06 AM
Winning majors means everything here - so they're all on an even keel in that respect.

Being runner or up a semi-finalists in a major means nothing compared to winning an Olympic gold medal. At this stage the Olympic gold is worth as much as another major imo - at least in kudos when considering the player of the year award. Murray has two ticks this year in that respect (Olympic Gold, USO) - Djokovic, Federer and Nadal only one each.

Imo, if Federer wins the WTF then Murray should be player of the year... Even though the WTF is worth more in points the Olympics is a grander achievement this year - because it was Murray who won it. It's been his breakthrough year and the peak of his career. The same can't be said for Djokovic or Federer.

I agree with you that in terms of kudos Andy Murray could have been considered player of the year if he had won the WTF but now that he can't win the WTF, he can't be player of the year even though he won a major and the OG. If Federer wins the WTF today, you have to give POTY to him. That would give Federer 7 ATP titles including a slam and 3 Masters 1000 titles. In addition you have to look at the circumstances. Federer is 31 years old and long past his prime yet he was beating guys 24/25 and in their absolute primes including Nadal, Murray and Djokovic to win most of these titles? Not to mention the fact that Federer reclaimed the number one spot from Djokovic in a year that is supposed to be one of Djokovic's best years of his career? In addition, Federer won the silver medal in the Olympics.

I also agree with you about the slam final issue. No doubt Novak has been the most consistent player of the year by making it further in the slams but really so what? Who really cares about being a slam finalist? If you don't win the slam does anybody really remember?

Again for consistency Novak is the man but in terms of more impressive achievements, you would have to give that to the old man Federer if he were to win the WTF today.

5555
11-12-2012, 03:07 AM
Let's play your game, here--is that a fact or an opinion?

It is a fact that slams are big tournaments. It is not a fact that Olympics and WTF are big tournaments.

NatF
11-12-2012, 03:08 AM
It is a fact that slams are big tournaments. It is not a fact that Olympics and WTF are big tournaments.

Yeah it is...the WTF especially is seen as a big tournament. It's not a slam but it's still the 5th biggest event of the year. It has a lot of history.

cc0509
11-12-2012, 03:14 AM
It is a fact that slams are big tournaments. It is not a fact that Olympics and WTF are big tournaments.

Yes they are big tournaments. The WTF is next to slams in terms of ranking points and the Olympics, while lower than a Masters 1000 in terms of ranking points, is higher in prestige to all of the top players than a Masters 1000 is.

5555
11-12-2012, 04:09 AM
Yeah it is
Yes they are big tournaments.

In your opinion they are big tournaments. It is not a fact that they are big tournaments.

NatF
11-12-2012, 04:17 AM
In your opinion they are big tournaments. It is not a fact that they are big tournaments.

Prove they're not big tournaments. Specifically prove the WTF with it's 1500 points reward for an undefeated winner is not big.

merlinpinpin
11-12-2012, 04:20 AM
It is a fact that slams are big tournaments. It is not a fact that Olympics and WTF are big tournaments.

Actually, no. All is a matter of opinion.

Slams are big tournaments, but so are the Masters and Olympics.

So are the M1000's, too, for that matter. Slams just happen to be bigger. And that was no necessarily always the case (see the AO in the 70's and most of the 80's, it was then less important than the Masters and Dallas WTC finals).

So, everything is a matter of opinion.

Of course, you might also decide that only the bigger stages count. But in this case, what you wrote shows you're biased. If you only aim for the very top of the line in tennis, then there is only one single tournament, not four. And that is Wimbledon. All the others are smaller, and I mean all of them. Does that mean they're not big, as you say?

5555
11-12-2012, 04:31 AM
Prove they're not big tournaments. Specifically prove the WTF with it's 1500 points reward for an undefeated winner is not big.

Is it a fact that Olympics and WTF are big tournaments? Yes or no?

Slams are big tournaments, but so are the Masters and Olympics.

It is a fact that slams are big tournaments. It is questionable weather Olympics and WTF are big tournaments.

Of course, you might also decide that only the bigger stages count. But in this case, what you wrote shows you're biased. If you only aim for the very top of the line in tennis, then there is only one single tournament, not four. And that is Wimbledon. All the others are smaller, and I mean all of them. Does that mean they're not big, as you say?

Wimbledon, AO, US Open and FO are all in the same category: slams. Therefore, your arguments fails.

cc0509
11-12-2012, 04:33 AM
In your opinion they are big tournaments. It is not a fact that they are big tournaments.

No, it is a fact that Slams are the biggest tournaments followed by YEC, Masters 1000 and the Olympics in terms of ranking points. In terms of prestige the Olympics is a big deal for the biggest players. This is not something we can really dispute.
Is something wrong with you?

NatF
11-12-2012, 04:41 AM
This guy is a tool. What kind of evidence is he asking us to put forward? Clearly the sentiments of the players and the ATP's own ranking points aren't enough for him.

merlinpinpin
11-12-2012, 04:42 AM
Is it a fact that Olympics and WTF are big tournaments? Yes or no?

Yes, no question about that. The Masters is the 5th bigger event of the year (was 4th for a great many years, too). The Olympics weren't a big tournament a few years ago, but they're getting there. This year at Wimbledon surely helped, too.

It is a fact that slams are big tournaments. It is questionable weather Olympics and WTF are big tournaments.

No. The Masters has been a big tournament for about 40 years, while the AO has been for about 25 years only. Does that mean that the Masters is bigger than the AO?

Wimbledon, AO, US Open and FO are all in the same category: slams. Therefore, your arguments fails.

That's the difference betwen you and everybody else here. We *do* have an argument, you do not. You're setting arbitrary limits just because it suits your boy. As I said before, if you only recognize the very very best, then you stop at Wimbledon. If you don't, you have to recognize that there are many more big tournaments during a tennis year. Some are just bigger than others and, as said before, none of them are bigger than The Championships.

5555
11-12-2012, 04:42 AM
No, it is a fact that Slams are the biggest tournaments followed by YEC, Masters 1000 and the Olympics in terms of ranking points. In terms of prestige the Olympics is a big deal for the biggest players. This is not something we can really dispute.

It is a fact that slams are big tournaments. This is not something we can really dispute. If biggest players think Olympics are a big deal, it does not mean it's a fact that Olympics is a big tournament.

Is something wrong with you?

Do you have common sense? It seems not.

cc0509
11-12-2012, 04:47 AM
It is a fact that slams are big tournaments. This is not something we can really dispute. If biggest players think Olympics are a big deal, it does not mean it's a fact that Olympics is a big tournament.



Do you have common sense? It seems not.

I am not disputing that slams are the biggest tournaments but the YEC follows slams according to ATP ranking points, do you not get this fact?

5555
11-12-2012, 04:58 AM
Clearly the sentiments of the players and the ATP's own ranking points aren't enough for him.

Can you explain how ATP rankings prove that it's a fact that Olympics and WTF are big tournaments?

Yes, no question about that.

No, it's your opinion. It's not a fact.

The Masters is the 5th bigger event of the year (was 4th for a great many years, too).

If the Masters is the 5th biggest event of the year it does not mean it's a fact that it's a big tournament.

The Olympics weren't a big tournament a few years ago, but they're getting there. This year at Wimbledon surely helped, too.

Maybe in future Olympics is going to be a big tournament, but as of now it's not a fact that Olympics is a big tournament.

No.

Yes.

The Masters has been a big tournament for about 40 years, while the AO has been for about 25 years only. Does that mean that the Masters is bigger than the AO?

No.

That's the difference betwen you and everybody else here. We *do* have an argument, you do not. You're setting arbitrary limits just because it suits your boy.

We all have argument. The difference is that I have strong argument and you have weak argument.

As I said before, if you only recognize the very very best, then you stop after Wimbledon. If you don't, you have to recognize that there are many more big tournaments during a tennis year. Some are just bigger than others and, as said before, none of them are bigger than The Championships.

Wimbledon, AO, US Open and FO are all in the same category: slams. Therefore, your argument fails.

5555
11-12-2012, 05:02 AM
but the YEC follows slams according to ATP ranking points, do you not get this fact?

Can you explain how ATP ranking points prove it's a fact that WTF is a big tournament?

NatF
11-12-2012, 05:07 AM
Can you explain how ATP ranking points prove it's a fact that WTF is a big tournament?

Can you suggest a better metric other than the ATP ranking points?

5555
11-12-2012, 05:08 AM
Can you suggest a better metric other than the ATP ranking points?

You did not answer my question.

cc0509
11-12-2012, 05:17 AM
Can you explain how ATP ranking points prove it's a fact that WTF is a big tournament?

Do you even hear what you are saying? If you are trying to say the YEC with 1500 points is not a big tournament than how can you claim a slam with 2000 is a big tournament? You can't say on the one hand a slam with 2000 points is the biggest tournament but the YEC with 1500 points is not the next biggest tournament. Do you fail to see that logic?

NatF
11-12-2012, 05:19 AM
You did not answer my question.

Don't see why I should. You offer no basis for why you reject the sentiments of the players or the ATP. You simply say it's not factual. If anyone is simply giving an opinion here it's you.

Offer something constructive like what you think makes a tournament big. Otherwise we're going in circles...

joeri888
11-12-2012, 05:22 AM
LOL. This is so full of nothingness. Fact, opinion, whatever. Nobody in their right mind considers something like a MS1000, Slam, Olympics or WTF NOT a big tournament.

merlinpinpin
11-12-2012, 05:28 AM
If the Masters is the 5th biggest event of the year it does not mean it's a fact that it's a big tournament.

Okay, so only the biggest counts. Got it.

Therefore, the only big tournament is Wimbledon.

Therefore, Federer should be PotY by a landslide, with Murray at 2nd best PotY should such a position exist. Because, let's face it, Murray was a finalist at the biggest tournament of the year and won the second biggest, while Djokovic only won the fourth biggest.

Happy, now?

5555
11-12-2012, 05:30 AM
Do you even hear what you are saying? If you are trying to say the YEC with 1500 points is not a big tournament than how can you claim a slam with 2000 is a big tournament? You can't say on the one hand a slam with 2000 points is the biggest tournament but the YEC with 1500 points is not the next biggest tournament. Do you fail to see that logic?

1. There are no tournaments that get more than 2000 points so logically it means that slams are big tournaments according to the ATP.

2. I did not say that WTF is not the next most important tournament after slams, but I do not see how it proves it's a fact that WTF is a big tournament.

Carsomyr
11-12-2012, 05:31 AM
Don't see why I should. You offer no basis for why you reject the sentiments of the players or the ATP. You simply say it's not factual. If anyone is simply giving an opinion here it's you.

Offer something constructive like what you think makes a tournament big. Otherwise we're going in circles...

The one going in circles his him. He likes to throw a lot of logical fallacies at you that he half-learned in secondary school despite his argument boiling down to "big tournaments are slams, therefore slams are big tournaments," - a classic example of circular reasoning.

And yes, this is an ad hominem.

merlinpinpin
11-12-2012, 05:33 AM
1. There are no tournaments that get more than 2000 points so logically it means that slams are big tournaments according to the ATP.

No. Who said there *had* to be big tournaments? Maybe they're all small according to the ATP, but those which get 1,000 points are even smaller than the ones which get 2,000.

2. I did not say that WTF is not the next most important tournament after slams, but I do not see how it proves it's a fact that WTF is a big tournament.

See above. It's smaller than the slams, which are pretty small, too (cause, let's face it, 2,000 points is not that big when you compare this with the best players' totals).

Djokovic's win at the 4th tournament of the year, the Australian Open, awarded him 2,000 points, ie, less than one-sixth of his current total. So how big is that? Pretty small, if you ask me. Verging on the insignificant.

Steve0904
11-12-2012, 05:46 AM
Winning majors means everything here - so they're all on an even keel in that respect.

Being runner or up a semi-finalists in a major means nothing compared to winning an Olympic gold medal. At this stage the Olympic gold is worth as much as another major imo - at least in kudos when considering the player of the year award. Murray has two ticks this year in that respect (Olympic Gold, USO) - Djokovic, Federer and Nadal only one each.

Imo, if Federer wins the WTF then Murray should be player of the year... Even though the WTF is worth more in points the Olympics is a grander achievement this year - because it was Murray who won it. It's been his breakthrough year and the peak of his career. The same can't be said for Djokovic or Federer.

Murray is not even close to being the POTY if Federer wins IMO. He was eliminated from this discussion when he lost yesterday, again IMO. If Federer wins he will have 2 of the 6 big tournaments, as will Murray. I'm counting the WTF here. You would have to wouldn't you? I'll never put the Olympics on level with the slams despite what the players try to tell me because I think its major (no pun intended) appeal is that the players get to play for their country, but it is a great acheivement, and it is a big tournament, if only this year, but it's not a big tournament just because Murray won it. You're starting to sound like *** here. Djokovic and Federer also have 3 M1000 each while Murray has zero, and I don't see why having a breakthrough year should come into play when talking about the POTY. Of course, if Djokovic wins all this doesn't matter.

5555
11-12-2012, 05:47 AM
Don't see why I should. You offer no basis for why you reject the sentiments of the players or the ATP. You simply say it's not factual. If anyone is simply giving an opinion here it's you.

I did not reject what ATP says. Your claim is that ATP rankings points prove it's a fact that Olympics and WTF are big tournaments but you did not explain how ATP rankings points prove it.

Nobody in their right mind considers something like a MS1000, Slam, Olympics or WTF NOT a big tournament.

Nonsense, something is wrong with you. It's a fact that slams are big tournaments. It's questionable whether Olympics, WTF and MS1000 are big tournaments.

Okay, so only the biggest counts. Got it.

Therefore, the only big tournament is Wimbledon.

You lost the argument. You failed to rebut the following argument: Wimbledon is tournament in the same category as US Open, French Open and Australian Open.

Carsomyr
11-12-2012, 05:58 AM
Nonsense, something is wrong with you. It's a fact that slams are big tournaments. It's questionable whether Olympics, WTF and MS1000 are big tournaments.

By what criterion? Age? Draw size? Point value? Attendance? Prize money?

5555
11-12-2012, 05:59 AM
No. Who said there *had* to be big tournaments? Maybe they're all small according to the ATP, but those which get 1,000 points are even smaller than the ones which get 2,000.

It's logical that tournaments with most points are big tournaments according to ATP. It's common sense (something you lack).

merlinpinpin
11-12-2012, 06:09 AM
It's logical that tournaments with most points are big tournaments according to ATP. It's common sense (something you lack).

No. It's not common sense that only the category that awards the most points are "big" tournaments while all of the others are "small". That is your argument, and it doesn't hold water for a New York second. They could all be big, or small, or the line could be drawn elsewhere. Arbitrarily saying that it should be drawn right after the 4th tournament of the year just because that's the one your boy won won't get you anywhere but in troll-land.

5555
11-12-2012, 06:20 AM
By what criterion?

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/587387/tennis

No. It's not common sense that only the category that awards the most points are "big" tournaments while all of the others are "small". That is your argument, and it doesn't hold water for a New York second. They could all be big, or small, or the line could be drawn elsewhere. Arbitrarily saying that it should be drawn right after the 4th tournament of the year just because that's the one your boy won won't get you anywhere but in troll-land.

My argument is not that all other tournaments are small. I said it's questionable whether WTF and Olympics are big tournaments. Only person who lacks common sense can claim that there are no big tournaments.

PS In my opinion:
Big tournaments: Slams (fact)
Medium tournaments: Olympics, WTF, MS 1000 (questionable)
Small tournaments: ATP 500 and 250 (questionable)

joeri888
11-12-2012, 06:21 AM
Nonsense, something is wrong with you. It's a fact that slams are big tournaments. It's questionable whether Olympics, WTF and MS1000 are big tournaments.

No it's not. It's questionable whether challengers are big tournaments. ATP tournaments are big tournaments, especially if some of the big 4 play, and especially if there are more than 500 points for the winner. Even more if their only played 1 time in every four years, or are worth 1500 points with sellout crowds every day. You can keep stating that it's not a FACT, but if you think it's questionable, than MAKE YOUR FREAKIN CASE, instead of just saying that it's not a fact.

5555
11-12-2012, 06:31 AM
No it's not. It's questionable whether challengers are big tournaments. ATP tournaments are big tournaments, especially if some of the big 4 play, and especially if there are more than 500 points for the winner. Even more if their only played 1 time in every four years, or are worth 1500 points with sellout crowds every day. You can keep stating that it's not a FACT, but if you think it's questionable, than MAKE YOUR FREAKIN CASE, instead of just saying that it's not a fact.

Burden of proof is on people who make positive claim. I claim it's not a fact that Olympics and WTF are big tournaments which is a negative claim.

cknobman
11-12-2012, 06:44 AM
Burden of proof is on people who make positive claim. I claim it's not a fact that Olympics and WTF are big tournaments which is a negative claim.

In order to even make a claim of what is and is not considered a big tournament a set of criteria for determining what IS a big tournament must be established.

Sooooo please tell us what is your criteria for determining a big tournament.

merlinpinpin
11-12-2012, 06:46 AM
Burden of proof is on people who make positive claim. I claim it's not a fact that Olympics and WTF are big tournaments which is a negative claim.

Oh, but you do, as you also stated many times that slams *are* big tournaments.

5555
11-12-2012, 06:56 AM
In order to even make a claim of what is and is not considered a big tournament a set of criteria for determining what IS a big tournament must be established.

Sooooo please tell us what is your criteria for determining a big tournament.

I do not have to say what is my criteria for determining big tournaments. I have to provide reliable sources to show it's a fact that slams are big tournaments (which I did).

Oh, but you do, as you also stated many times that slams *are* big tournaments.

Britannica http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/587387/tennis

Nathaniel_Near
11-12-2012, 06:57 AM
It's amazing how many people spam this burden of proof bullpoop all the time, as if it's another established and irrefutable fact/principle that must be adhered to and is beyond question. It's also humourous how people have clung onto this fad like sheep and then presume that using it creates a certain justification for the implied ramifications of their reasoning for the topic in question.

merlinpinpin
11-12-2012, 07:40 AM
Britannica http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/587387/tennis

Major (pun intended) fail, young man. Nowhere does this state that the grand slam tournaments are "big" and all the others aren't. So, if that's your last-ditch defense, I'm afraid it's already been breached.

Game, set, and match.

Prisoner of Birth
11-12-2012, 07:49 AM
I do not have to say what is my criteria for determining big tournaments. I have to provide reliable sources to show it's a fact that slams are big tournaments (which I did).



Britannica http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/587387/tennis

Going by your logic :

I'm a human, so you're not :)

cknobman
11-12-2012, 08:26 AM
I do not have to say what is my criteria for determining big tournaments. I have to provide reliable sources to show it's a fact that slams are big tournaments (which I did).



Britannica http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/587387/tennis

Ok here is a reliable source to prove the World Tour Finals is a big tournament.

Source ATP World Tour website: http://www.atpworldtour.com/News/Tennis/2012/11/45/London-Finale-One-Millionth-Fan.aspx

Your argument against the Word Tour Finals loses.

5555
11-12-2012, 08:44 AM
Major (pun intended) fail, young man. Nowhere does this state that the grand slam tournaments are "big" and all the others aren't. So, if that's your last-ditch defense, I'm afraid it's already been breached.

Game, set, and match.

Britannica does say that slams are big tournaments. Checkmate.

Going by your logic :

I'm a human, so you're not :)

Can you explain why going by my logic you are a human and I'm not?

Ok here is a reliable source to prove the World Tour Finals is a big tournament.

Source ATP World Tour website: http://www.atpworldtour.com/News/Tennis/2012/11/45/London-Finale-One-Millionth-Fan.aspx

Your argument against the Word Tour Finals loses.

If WTF is a prestigious tournament it does not mean it's a big tournament.



You all lost the argument.

Prisoner of Birth
11-12-2012, 09:04 AM
Britannica does say that slams are big tournaments. Checkmate.



Can you explain why going by my logic you are a human and I'm not?



If WTF is a prestigious tournament it does not mean it's a big tournament.



You all lost the argument.

What you said : "Grand Slams are big tournaments so the WTF isn't."

I said : "I am a human so you are not."

cknobman
11-12-2012, 09:28 AM
If WTF is a prestigious tournament it does not mean it's a big tournament.

You all lost the argument.

LMAO if there is one thing I have learned here at Talk Tennis it is you cannot argue with stupidity. You are a perfect example of that.

Did you even read the article?

Here are a few quotes directly from the article that reinforce big:

"The Barclays ATP World Tour Finals today welcomed its 1 millionth fan through the doors of The O2 to watch the prestigious season finale."

"It was announced this week that the world’s largest indoor tennis tournament would remain at The O2 through 2015 and that Barclays"

"Watched by more than 70 million viewers in 184 countries in 2011"

EDIT:

Just for reference total attendance for the French Open in 2011 was 429,105 (source (http://www.rolandgarros.com/en_FR/about/atoz.html)) which is less than half of the attendance of the WTF which has not yet completed.

5555
11-13-2012, 02:43 AM
What you said : "Grand Slams are big tournaments so the WTF isn't."

I did not say that.

LMAO if there is one thing I have learned here at Talk Tennis it is you cannot argue with stupidity. You are a perfect example of that.

Did you even read the article?

Here are a few quotes directly from the article that reinforce big:

"The Barclays ATP World Tour Finals today welcomed its 1 millionth fan through the doors of The O2 to watch the prestigious season finale."

"It was announced this week that the world’s largest indoor tennis tournament would remain at The O2 through 2015 and that Barclays"

"Watched by more than 70 million viewers in 184 countries in 2011"

EDIT:

Just for reference total attendance for the French Open in 2011 was 429,105 (source (http://www.rolandgarros.com/en_FR/about/atoz.html)) which is less than half of the attendance of the WTF which has not yet completed.

You are an idiot. According to your logic WTF is bigger tournament than FO.

joeri888
11-14-2012, 12:07 AM
LMAO if there is one thing I have learned here at Talk Tennis it is you cannot argue with stupidity. You are a perfect example of that.

Did you even read the article?

Here are a few quotes directly from the article that reinforce big:

"The Barclays ATP World Tour Finals today welcomed its 1 millionth fan through the doors of The O2 to watch the prestigious season finale."

"It was announced this week that the world’s largest indoor tennis tournament would remain at The O2 through 2015 and that Barclays"

"Watched by more than 70 million viewers in 184 countries in 2011"

EDIT:

Just for reference total attendance for the French Open in 2011 was 429,105 (source (http://www.rolandgarros.com/en_FR/about/atoz.html)) which is less than half of the attendance of the WTF which has not yet completed.

Uhm, let's be clear here. I'm pretty sure those O2 million spectators came in 4 years. They added 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012 together.

Sabratha
11-14-2012, 03:14 AM
Yeah, still roughly 500,000 people every year on average go to the O2.

cknobman
11-14-2012, 06:38 AM
Uhm, let's be clear here. I'm pretty sure those O2 million spectators came in 4 years. They added 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012 together.

Yes you are correct. To be more specific this year attracted 263,229 spectators over 8 days.

Here are some cool stats posted on ATP world tour website:
ON TV
• An estimated global cumulative audience of 100.7 million viewers tuned into the event.
• Televised by 56 broadcasters in 193 territories, a total of 5,580 hours were broadcast across the eight days of the tournament, a 27% increase on 2011.
• In the UK, more than 60 hours of coverage was featured live on Sky Sports and 20 hours on terrestrial television on BBC.

ONLINE
• ATPWorldTour.com attracted 3.4 million unique visitors throughout the tournament, a 10% increase on 2011.
• Live match streaming on TennisTV.com, the ATP’s official live streaming site, received more than 3.75 million total streams, an increase of 25% on 2011.
• ATP World Tour content posted to Facebook exceeded 40 million impressions (222% increase on 2011) and conversations on Twitter grew 93% from last year.
• ATP’s official YouTube channel drove 727,800 views and nearly 1 million minutes watched during the week (45% increase in views on 2011).
• ATP Official Live Scoring Flash and Mobile Applications recorded more than 23 million page impressions and total user sessions in excess of 3.1 million for the week.

NatF
11-14-2012, 07:00 AM
^^ How do those stats compare to the second week of a Grand Slam?

TMF
11-14-2012, 07:43 AM
Give it a rest people. the WTF IS an important/prestigious tournament.

A player who's consider one of all time great but not winning at least 1 WTF would have a big hole in their resume.

cknobman
11-14-2012, 10:15 AM
^^ How do those stats compare to the second week of a Grand Slam?

I dont know but here are some stats on Grand Slam total attendance:
US Open 2012: 710,803
French Open 2011: 429,105
Wimbledon 2012: 484,805
Australian Open 2012: 686,006

So the Word Tour Finals over 8 days and played on 1 court had over 283000 people which is 65% of the French Open total attendance which is held over 14 days and 15+ courts.

I'd say the World Tour Finals is every bit as big as some of the Grand Slams.

veroniquem
11-14-2012, 10:34 AM
Well, it turns out the POTY this year is the WTF winner as well. Not always true but it is this year. Also it was more significant for this season than others because the 2 top players' records were relatively close. In 2011 for instance, it didn't matter because no player could have overtaken Djoko, WTF title or not.