Did Federer Lose the Battle to #1 or Did Novak Win It

[McEnroeisanartist]

It seems almost certain that Novak will end the year #1 and Federer #2. Did Federer lose the battle to #1 (any matches/tournaments that he will have regrets about). Or did Novak step up and earn the #1?

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

[BrooklynNY]

I think Djokovic lost it for a minute around Wimbledon, and then recovered.

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

I think Nole won it.

[mattennis]

Originally Posted by McEnroeisanartist

It seems almost certain that Novak will end the year #1 and Federer #2. Did Federer lose the battle to #1 (any matches/tournaments that he will have regrets about). Or did Novak step up and earn the #1?

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

What do you want, man?

Federer is 31 for christ sake!

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

Since the ATP computed Rankings started in 1973, the oldest Year End Nº1 have been Lendl in 1989 ( he was 29 ) and Agassi in 1999 ( he was 29 too ).

[Cup8489]

Originally Posted by mattennis

What do you want, man?

Federer is 31 for christ sake!

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

Since the ATP computed Rankings started in 1973, the oldest Year End Nº1 have been Lendl in 1989 ( he was 29 ) and Agassi in 1999 ( he was 29 too ).

Federer has nearly done that this year.

[Steve0904]

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

[Sartorius]

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

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

[6-1 6-3 6-0]

Like I said, you just can't satisfy a Federer fan.

[Russeljones]

Federer won it. He was 'never in a light year' supposed to be in this position to begin with.

[Sabratha]

I think Djokovic won it.

[NadalAgassi]

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

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

[Hood_Man]

Originally Posted by Steve0904

So are you going to answer the question with a plausible response, or are you just going to troll all day?

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

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

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

[roundiesee]

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

[smoledman]

Djokovic won it.

[Tony48]

Djoker won it.

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

[Smasher08]

Originally Posted by McEnroeisanartist

As the only really bad losses for Federer for the year were Roddick at Miami and Berdych at the U.S. Open.

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

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

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

[veroniquem]

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

[Smasher08]

Originally Posted by veroniquem

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

Hmmmm biased much?

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

Nope.

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

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

Astounding!

[15_ounce]

Did Federer what? He hasn't lost his number 1 ranking. He is still number1 at the moment.

[adil1972]

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

[Sabratha]

Originally Posted by roundiesee

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

Doesn't it depend on the WTF?