WTF Winner Will Be Player Of The Year???

[Gonzo_style]

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

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.

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]

Originally Posted by 5555

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]

Originally Posted by kishnabe

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?

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]

Originally Posted by Gonzo_style

Nadal did not play on TMC 2005.

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

[Steve0904]

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

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]

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]

Originally Posted by tudwell

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]

Originally Posted by kishnabe

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]

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]

Originally Posted by robbo1970

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]

Originally Posted by robbo1970

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]

As I've said before Paris and WTF to decide it

[batz]

Originally Posted by 5555

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.

Originally Posted by Steve0904

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]

Originally Posted by batz

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]

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

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]

Originally Posted by 5555

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]

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.

Originally Posted by stringertom

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