2021 YE #1 Race: Daniil vs. Novak

Who gets 2021 YE?

  • Novak holds on

    Votes: 62 79.5%
  • Daniil Domination

    Votes: 16 20.5%

  • Total voters
    78
  • This poll will close: .

T007

Professional
Daniil definitely has a chance, but I don't think Novak will give it up so easily. He knows this is one of his last chances (maybe last) to break the tie with Pete and just like how he ensured the YE#1 last year by playing Vienna et al he may well do something similar this year. Do I think he'll go to Indian Wells? No, he's better off being in Europe throughout October. However, throughout Vienna Paris and Turin he can very likely do just enough to hold on to his YE#1. The only way Med can really ensure overtaking the YE#1 is if he wins both masters and the YEC, which while possible isn't easy considering one of them is on the other side of the globe
Medvdev might skip Indianwells as he said he will go on a long vacation after USO. He missed his best chance in clay+grass season where he was infected with various and had lowkey results. A decent clay season could have made him stand on a poll position to finish No 1.
 

UnforcedTerror

Hall of Fame
Its a foolish thing to try and repeat murray job of 2016. That insane run in Indoor season ruined Andys body and he got sidelined with injuries next season.
Agreed. It's not worth it. He'll get there eventually, probably after the AO if Djokovic doesn't defend his title.
 

El_Yotamo

Hall of Fame
Medvdev might skip Indianwells as he said he will go on a long vacation after USO. He missed his best chance in clay+grass season where he was infected with various and had lowkey results. A decent clay season could have made him stand on a poll position to finish No 1.
We'll see. Either way as I said I don't Daniil takes over
 

JasonZ

Professional
usually the one who finishes first in the live year ranking is the one who is year end number 1. right now novak only has a 990 points advantage over daniil in the champiions race, so daniil has very good chances to be year end number 1.
 

nachiket nolefam

Hall of Fame
I think Novak skips everything. It's very much possible that his aim now is only grand slams. In his post match press conference, he said he wants to continue but playing slams and for his country etc. Playing Belgrade or playing some warm up tournament to a slam makes sense than playing a dead tournament that doesn't lead to any slam after USOpen. He has already won IW and Bercy a record number of times and WTF 5 times. He doesn't need to win them anymore.

He had target of reaching max ye no. 1. He did that by going to Vienna last year.

He had target of reaching max weeks at no. 1. He did that.

Yesterday in the press conference, he said Medvedev is now number 1. I don't think he even knows how far behind Medvedev is but if Novak had won US open he would have put 3200 pts difference between himself and Medvedev virtually winning the year end no.1.

So seems like he has given up from contesting for ranking.
 

Devtennis01

G.O.A.T.
Watching Med's post match interview, he said he had a lot of points to defend and while it would be great if he could win IW-Paris-WTF, it was not something he was that engaged with right now and No.1 might happen sometime later in his career. I don't think he'll be going after it.
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
Novak is already the YE #1. No batch of extra titles overrides a margin of 2 Slams.

He's now the co-OE leader with Pistol at 7 total (an FYI 4 U jokers: '99 goes to Pete due to his dominance over Dre). In fact Gonzales is the only one who can be said to have finished more years as the world #1. I suspect this was the last year of dominance for Nole, but we'll see.
99 Agassi over Pete by a clear distance. A dominant h2h+YEC is definitely not enough to make up 1 more slam+1 more slam final+YEC final
 
Last edited:

BGod

Legend
I think Novak skips everything. It's very much possible that his aim now is only grand slams. In his post match press conference, he said he wants to continue but playing slams and for his country etc. Playing Belgrade or playing some warm up tournament to a slam makes sense than playing a dead tournament that doesn't lead to any slam after USOpen. He has already won IW and Bercy a record number of times and WTF 5 times. He doesn't need to win them anymore.

He had target of reaching max ye no. 1. He did that by going to Vienna last year.

He had target of reaching max weeks at no. 1. He did that.

Yesterday in the press conference, he said Medvedev is now number 1. I don't think he even knows how far behind Medvedev is but if Novak had won US open he would have put 3200 pts difference between himself and Medvedev virtually winning the year end no.1.

So seems like he has given up from contesting for ranking.
Time heals all wounds. Plus he lives in Monte Carlo. Just don't see him skipping Paris, Vienna AND WTF when he doesn't need to run himself ragged just put in Hal effort honestly.
 

kishnabe

Talk Tennis Guru
1990 points difference between the two.

Djokovic has to skip the whole year or play very poorly in IW, Paris and WTF.
 

ibbi

Legend
It should be really interesting for 2 reasons - We've never seen Medvedev 2.0 play at Indian Wells, so have no idea how he's going to do there, and with the Finals in Milan we have no idea how he'll like things there either. If it was just your typical Shanghai, Paris, London we know he's better than everyone else at this point.

Secondly, what's Novak going to do? We know breaking records is what he's all about, and there's one of the last 'major' ones to be broken, but we also know he's made no secret of being all about the majors. After what he's been through these past couple of weeks if he came out and actually pulled that off in the form of the game he's no longer particularly dominant in it'd be pretty epic.
 

RaulRamirez

Legend
I want 2022 season to look like this

Aus Open Champion : Daniel Medvedev beats Novak in the final
French Open Champion : Stefanos Sissy-pas beat Djokovic in the Final
Wimbledon Champion : Roger Federer beats Felix in the final
US open Champion : Sascha Zverev beats Medvedev in the final


How is this possible ??
Any scenarios ???
For my rooting interest - NOT a prediction:

AO - Rafa over Med
RG - Novak over Thiem
WIM - Rafa over Novak or Roger
US - Novak over Karatsev (he'll arise again)

But seriously, I mostly just want good tennis, good health for all, and a safer world in which tennis is a fun diversion
 

big ted

Hall of Fame
give medvedev a break.. he already thwarted djokos CYGS hopes
does he have to take the #1 ranking too? let djoko have this one for now lol..
 

Sunny014

Legend
For my rooting interest - NOT a prediction:

AO - Rafa over Med
RG - Novak over Thiem
WIM - Rafa over Novak or Roger
US - Novak over Karatsev (he'll arise again)

But seriously, I mostly just want good tennis, good health for all, and a safer world in which tennis is a fun diversion

In that case my wish is

AO - Kyrgios to beat Djokovic in the final
FO - ********** to beat Djokovic in the final
W - Federer to beat Djokovic in the final
US - Federer to beat Djokovic in the final

Djokovic announces retirement in 2022 :-D
 

RaulRamirez

Legend
In that case my wish is

AO - Kyrgios to beat Djokovic in the final
FO - ********** to beat Djokovic in the final
W - Federer to beat Djokovic in the final
US - Federer to beat Djokovic in the final

Djokovic announces retirement in 2022 :-D
Remarkably, that coincides with my prediction for 2022.
 

Vamos Rafa Nadal

Hall of Fame
Djokovic has too big a lead, but it isn't completely out of the question. Medvedev is defending more points than Djokovic is for the rest of the year. He would have to win just about every tournament he enters (or make deep runs - SF's and F's) and enter enough of them in order to overtake Djokovic as the #1 player of 2021.
 

RaulRamirez

Legend
Djokovic has too big a lead, but it isn't completely out of the question. Medvedev is defending more points than Djokovic is for the rest of the year. He would have to win just about every tournament he enters (or make deep runs - SF's and F's) and enter enough of them in order to overtake Djokovic as the #1 player of 2021.
I think you should look at the Race to Turin standings - it doesn't really matter who's defending what - just points earned in 2021.

Djoker's lead over Med is 1,990 points.
Obviously, it depends on what tourneys they'll play and how they play.
There are two M1000s prior the ATP Finals, and a few other opportunities.

Med can easily draw within 1,000 points or less, or even grab the lead if he's motivated and Novak is burned out or disinterested.
And then the ATP Finals has a bonanza of up to 1,500 points if you run the table.
I want Novak to hold on, but Med is very tough this time of year (as Novak is when motivated).
 

Vamos Rafa Nadal

Hall of Fame
Raul, I heard that the lead has shrunk to 1400 points. But yes, I agree with you. I think it is possible that Medvedev can take the #1 for 2021 but I think it is more likely that Djokovic will get it.
 

RaulRamirez

Legend
Raul, I heard that the lead has shrunk to 1400 points. But yes, I agree with you. I think it is possible that Medvedev can take the #1 for 2021 but I think it is more likely that Djokovic will get it.
It's fairly easy to look up. In the "regular" rankings, it's about a 1350 point gap - yes.
 

James P

G.O.A.T.
Watching Med's post match interview, he said he had a lot of points to defend and while it would be great if he could win IW-Paris-WTF, it was not something he was that engaged with right now and No.1 might happen sometime later in his career. I don't think he'll be going after it.
Those are also the only three he implied he'd play outside of Laver.
 

NonP

Hall of Fame
99 Agassi over Pete by a clear distance. A dominant h2h+YEC is definitely not enough to make up 1 more slam+1 more slam final+YEC final
That's true only per today's Slam-centric accounting. In the past H2Hs clearly counted more, as evidenced by insiders, journos and historians backing Gonzales (along with Rosewall) as the best of '60 even though he skipped two thirds of that year which one would think is worse than missing a Slam. In fact I would back Novak as the real #1 of '13 myself if not those 2 losses at RG and Flushing.

We tend to think "best" and "greatest" are two separate things but they're really not once you understand quality matters more than quantity. And Pete's emphatic W over Dre in the '99 YEC final left zero doubt who still ruled the men's tour. It really wasn't until the '00 AO SF (with that GOAT TB!) that Dre finally turned the tables on his nemesis.
 

Cortana

Hall of Fame
Yesterday in the press conference, he said Medvedev is now number 1. I don't think he even knows how far behind Medvedev is but if Novak had won US open he would have put 3200 pts difference between himself and Medvedev virtually winning the year end no.1.

So seems like he has given up from contesting for ranking.
Yes noticed that too. He is totally unaware of ATP points and ranking. He doesn't care at all anymore.
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
That's true only per today's Slam-centric accounting. In the past H2Hs clearly counted more, as evidenced by insiders, journos and historians backing Gonzales (along with Rosewall) as the best of '60 even though he skipped two thirds of that year which one would think is worse than missing a Slam. In fact I would back Novak as the real #1 of '13 myself if not those 2 losses at RG and Flushing.

We tend to think "best" and "greatest" are two separate things but they're really not once you understand quality matters more than quantity. And Pete's emphatic W over Dre in the '99 YEC final left zero doubt who still ruled the men's tour. It really wasn't until the '00 AO SF (with that GOAT TB!) that Dre finally turned the tables on his nemesis.
But I wasn't talking about slams only.
I mentioned the YEC.
Both won 1 masters each

If talk is about quality, widest gulf between them was on clay where Agassi was clearly better.

The win loss % for Sampras and Agassi in 99 was near identical:
Agassi: 63-14 (82%)
Pete: 40-8 (83%)

With Agassi playing far more matches, edge to Agassi on that front actually.

The scene in the 50s/60s pros was different with significantly more emphasis on h2h. Gonzales retired in 60 after he was known as the #1 guy in that year.

Also, if we go by your own measure, fed has 7 YE#1s (2004-07, 09 are official), 2003 (which I recall you yourself gave to fed over Roddick) and 2017 (fed over Nadal).

Fed has a clearly better case over Nadal in 17 than Sampras over Agassi in 99. Fed&Nadal both won 2 slams each. Nadal has one extra slam final, but fed has one more Masters. And he did go 4-0 vs Nadal, including GS win and 3 straight set convincing wins without being broken or getting to a TB. Fed also with a clearly higher win% here (though with lesser # of matches than Nadal)
 

thrust

Hall of Fame
usually the one who finishes first in the live year ranking is the one who is year end number 1. right now novak only has a 990 points advantage over daniil in the champiions race, so daniil has very good chances to be year end number 1.
Novak has a 1990 point advantage over Daniil, as of today.
 

Start da Game

Hall of Fame
rankings are important for lower level players ranked outside 100 for slam entries, not grandslam contenders inside top 10........tennis at the top is always about the four grandslams and will remain that way forever.......
 

NonP

Hall of Fame
Kids, you can't rely on the ATP rankings as this gospel but ignore the somewhat relevant fact that there was no official YE #1 last year. You either think for yourself or you don't. Like I said Novak is already the #1 of 2021 and some of the previous YE rankings are not to be trusted.

Case in point:

But I wasn't talking about slams only.
I mentioned the YEC.
Both won 1 masters each

If talk is about quality, widest gulf between them was on clay where Agassi was clearly better.

The win loss % for Sampras and Agassi in 99 was near identical:
Agassi: 63-14 (82%)
Pete: 40-8 (83%)

With Agassi playing far more matches, edge to Agassi on that front actually.

The scene in the 50s/60s pros was different with significantly more emphasis on h2h. Gonzales retired in 60 after he was known as the #1 guy in that year.

Also, if we go by your own measure, fed has 7 YE#1s (2004-07, 09 are official), 2003 (which I recall you yourself gave to fed over Roddick) and 2017 (fed over Nadal).

Fed has a clearly better case over Nadal in 17 than Sampras over Agassi in 99. Fed&Nadal both won 2 slams each. Nadal has one extra slam final, but fed has one more Masters. And he did go 4-0 vs Nadal, including GS win and 3 straight set convincing wins without being broken or getting to a TB. Fed also with a clearly higher win% here (though with lesser # of matches than Nadal)
Dre's superior clay record is definitely his strongest case as the best of '99 but Pete got the better of him on grass, hard AND carpet. And their Wimby and YEC showdowns weren't even close a la the '17 AO final, hence my emphasis on dominance. It really was crystal clear who the real king was.

I do give Fed '03 but not '17, for those reasons. Masters are big but not as big as the YEC, certainly not in the '90s. I tend to give extra credit for strong finishes and had Fed even made the '17 YEC final I'd be more inclined to give him at least a tie, but he couldn't quite finish the year with a bang, unlike Novak in '13. (And yes, I understand Nole beat Rafa in the YEC final, but that W takes a back seat to Rafa's at RG and Flushing.)

H2Hs did play a bigger role in Pancho/Ken's heyday but they're still important outside of ATP rankings, per these two tidbits re: the 2017 race from Wiki: "Sports Illustrated's tennis MVP award was a tie between Nadal and Federer. The International Sports Press Association voted Federer the world athlete of the year." I suppose one could say these are more like popularity contests, but I still doubt these professional sportswriters come to the same decisions sans Fed's H2H advantage.

But we're really getting off track with this hairsplitting. The bottom line is that you could say Fed and Rafa were the best in one half of '17 respectively, or Rafa and Novak in '13, but not so much for Pete and Dre in '99 (or Boris and Ivan in '89 for that matter). Even Dre knew Pete was still better, with damn good reason.
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
Dre's superior clay record is definitely his strongest case as the best of '99 but Pete got the better of him on grass, hard AND carpet. And their Wimby and YEC showdowns weren't even close a la the '17 AO final, hence my emphasis on dominance. It really was crystal clear who the real king was.

I do give Fed '03 but not '17, for those reasons. Masters are big but not as big as the YEC, certainly not in the '90s. I tend to give extra credit for strong finishes and had Fed even made the '17 YEC final I'd be more inclined to give him at least a tie, but he couldn't quite finish the year with a bang, unlike Novak in '13. (And yes, I understand Nole beat Rafa in the YEC final, but that W takes a back seat to Rafa's at RG and Flushing.)

H2Hs did play a bigger role in Pancho/Ken's heyday but they're still important outside of ATP rankings, per these two tidbits re: the 2017 race from Wiki: "Sports Illustrated's tennis MVP award was a tie between Nadal and Federer. The International Sports Press Association voted Federer the world athlete of the year." I suppose one could say these are more like popularity contests, but I still doubt these professional sportswriters come to the same decisions sans Fed's H2H advantage.

But we're really getting off track with this hairsplitting. The bottom line is that you could say Fed and Rafa were the best in one half of '17 respectively, or Rafa and Novak in '13, but not so much for Pete and Dre in '99 (or Boris and Ivan in '89 for that matter). Even Dre knew Pete was still better, with damn good reason.
1. I don't give HC to Sampras in 99 because he was absent for both the HC slams. Even if he went 2-0 vs Agassi on HC itself, it doesn't matter. Agassi actually won the USO. They were 1 all on carpet with Pete winning the bigger match obviously. And Agassi did win Paris on carpet.

2. Agassi actually beat Sampras once in 99 unlike Nadal v Federer and their Atlanta&Cincy matches were close. None of the last 3 4 matches of Fedal in 17 were that close.

3. Roddick also actually beat Fed in 03 Canada for the #1 ranking to the boot. Even if fed did beat Roddick convincingly at Wim and YEC. Their h2h in that year was 2-1.

4. As far as finishes go, in 2017, after the US Open Fed won both his Laver Cup matches, won Shanghai (bt. Delpo&Nadal) , won Basel (bt. delpo, dominant vs Tiafoe&Goffin - two of his best&most dominant performances that year). won his 3 RR matches though not in great form. The Goffin loss in the semi was a one off. 15-1 record after the USO. I'd say that's a fairly strong finish to the season.

5. Novak won 1 slam in 2013 to 2 for Nadal.
In 2017, fed nadal split the slams 2, 2.
significant difference I'd say, clearly bigger than djoko winning YEC and fed losing in the semi.
Also Nadal actually made the YEC final in 13 compared to going out after 1 match in 17.
 
Last edited:

Nadalgaenger

G.O.A.T.
Novak should take a sabbatical and come back for 2022 AO.
Could he do this and rely on field to keep Med at bay? Not sure who else can stop him on HC. Zverev was beaten soundly by him last year. Thiem out obviously. Tsitsipas doesn’t have answers apparenty…
 

NonP

Hall of Fame
1. I don't give HC to Sampras in 99 because he was absent for both the HC slams. Even if he went 2-0 vs Agassi on HC itself, it doesn't matter. Agassi actually won the USO.

2. Agassi actually beat Sampras once in 99 unlike Nadal v Federer and their Atlanta&Cincy matches were close. None of the last 3 4 matches of Fedal in 17 were that close.

3. Roddick also actually beat Fed in 03 Canada to get the #1 ranking to the boot. Even if fed did beat Roddick convincingly at Wim and YEC. Their h2h in that year was 2-1.

4. As far as finishes go, in 2017, after the US Open Fed won both his Laver Cup matches, won Shanghai (bt. Delpo&Nadal) , won Basel (bt. delpo, dominant vs Tiafoe&Goffin - two of his best&most dominant performances that year). won his 3 RR matches though not in great form. The Goffin loss in the semi was a one off. 15-1 record after the USO. I'd say that's a fairly strong finish to the season.
1. Fair enough, but I think you'll agree that Pete's overall margin of superiority was greater than Dre's.

2. That RR loss to Dre is really meaningless. Pete had just come back from his injury and clearly had yet to shake off the rust (he also had to withdraw from Paris after one match). Surely the dominant YEC final overrides any result in the RR or for that matter at any of the Masters, no?

3. But the H2H does favor Fed. Besides nothing from A-Rod that year matched Fed's masterclass in the YEC final, which is why the latter is generally referred to as the moment TMF arrived. I understand why some people would be wary of such subjective factors in their YE rankings, but I say they're in fact an essential part of any player comparison.

4. You already know I consider LC an exo and don't put much stock in smaller events. Fed definitely finished the year stronger than Rafa, but faltered in his most important match of the indoor season which IMO does give Rafa the overall edge due to his extra Slam final.

But Fed does have a good case for '17, I agree. So does '13 Novak. I just think '99 Pete's case is stronger, numbers be damned. Those two finals are among the best matches of his career and as such among the most dominant by anyone ever. A bit of a stretch to argue Dre's hard-fought FO and USO titles plus an extra Slam final override that, especially if you agree with me that these rankings aren't just matters of number crunching. Had Dre demonstrated clear superiority at RG and Flushing like Rafa did in '17 (at the same tourneys to boot!) I'd concede that he does deserve the sole YE crown, but that wasn't the case with '99 Dre who clearly wasn't as dominant as his '95 self.
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
1. Fair enough, but I think you'll agree that Pete's overall margin of superiority was greater than Dre's.

2. That RR loss to Dre is really meaningless. Pete had just come back from his injury and clearly had yet to shake off the rust (he also had to withdraw from Paris after one match). Surely the dominant YEC final overrides any result in the RR or for that matter at any of the Masters, no?

3. But the H2H does favor Fed. Besides nothing from A-Rod that year matched Fed's masterclass in the YEC final, which is why the latter is generally referred to as the moment TMF arrived. I understand why some people would be wary of such subjective factors in their YE rankings, but I say they're in fact an essential part of any player comparison.

4. You already know I consider LC an exo and don't put much stock in smaller events. Fed definitely finished the year stronger ttahan Rafa, but faltered in his most important match of the indoor season which IMO does give Rafa the overall edge due to his extra Slam final.

But Fed does have a good case for '17, I agree. So does '13 Novak. I just think '99 Pete's case is stronger, numbers be damned. Those two finals are among the best matches of his career and as such among the most dominant by anyone ever. A bit of a stretch to argue Dre's hard-fought FO and USO titles plus an extra Slam final override that, especially if you agree with me that these rankings aren't just matters of number crunching. Had Dre demonstrated clear superiority at RG and Flushing like Rafa did in '17 (at the same tourneys to boot!) I'd concede that he does deserve the sole YE crown, but that wasn't the case with '99 Dre who clearly wasn't as dominant as his '95 self.
1. I'm not saying don't take subjective stuff, but don't over-emphasise it is my point. You can't say numbers be damned when talking about ranking.
Even if you leave out LC, you still have Shanghai+basel for end of season of 17 for fed

Nadal has just 1 slam final over fed. Fed has 1 more masters, a clearly higher winning% and a dominant h2h
Agassi has 1 slam+1 slam final. Sampras has the YEC win and a dominant h2h.

Putting Sampras 99 over Agassi 99, but not Fed 17 over Nadal 17 doesn't add up

2. Agassi lost 4 sets at USO 99. Nadal lost 3 sets. This with Agassi having the clearly tougher draw. Agassi USO 99 > Nadal USO 17 level wise as well.
 

thrust

Hall of Fame
Could he do this and rely on field to keep Med at bay? Not sure who else can stop him on HC. Zverev was beaten soundly by him last year. Thiem out obviously. Tsitsipas doesn’t have answers apparenty…
Novak should keep playing this year so he can gain enough Race points to ensure YE at #1 like he did last year in Vienna.
 

NonP

Hall of Fame
1. I'm not saying don't take subjective stuff, but don't over-emphasise it is my point. You can't say numbers be damned when talking about ranking.
Even if you leave out LC, you still have Shanghai+basel for end of season of 17 for fed

Nadal has just 1 slam final over fed. Fed has 1 more masters, a clearly higher winning% and a dominant h2h
Agassi has 1 slam+1 slam final. Sampras has the YEC win and a dominant h2h.

Putting Sampras 99 over Agassi 99, but not Fed 17 over Nadal 17 doesn't add up

2. Agassi lost 4 sets at USO 99. Nadal lost 3 sets. This with Agassi having the clearly tougher draw. Agassi USO 99 > Nadal USO 17 level wise as well.
No prob if you wanna rank Fed co- or even sole #1 for '17, it's just that I like ma boy better for '99. Let me put it this way. I think you'll agree that the '99 Wimby and YEC finals are among the most dominant performances ever, and you know how I feel about Rafa's run at '17 RG. I don't think either of Fed's '17 finals (ditto '13 Novak's) is in the same class. An ATG performance Down Under for sure, and I understand the Wimby comparison isn't entirely fair cuz Fed never got a chance to show his best vs. an injured opponent - yes, I know he won the event without dropping a set, with 62.2% in GW - but then Pete had even worse luck with that untimely herniated disc, no?

That's what I mean by quality > quantity. Maybe this is overemphasizing the subjective stuff, but not in my book. To me such considerations are fair game.

All that said I'd never run the #s on Dre's 99 USO run cuz I figured his GW% wouldn't be that high thx to the grueling (and underrated) final vs. Martin, but I see he actually won 62.6% (144/230) for the fortnight, vs. '17 Rafa's 59.5% (160/269). That's a pretty strong showing on HC and definitely makes me rethink my '99 ranking... but then there's that 5-setter again. :happydevil:

So maybe I should just declare Pete/Dre, Rafa/Novak and Rafa/Fed co-#1s for '99, '13 and '17. Still think Pistol's case is stronger, but if '60 Gonzales can claim to be #1 despite missing 2/3 of the year it might make sense to be more flexible with co-rankings.

But then that brings Novak up to 8 YE #1s, coequal with Pancho, which doesn't feel right after last year's depleted season. So I'm not quite there yet. Maybe I should make an exception here and there but I prefer a more across-the-board approach.
 

roysid

Hall of Fame
If we see race points that is only 2021, Medvedev is lacking by 2000 points.

But if we see ranking, then Medvedev is trailing by 1400 points. Thats because many points from 2019 and 2020 tournaments are there , for both players actually.
Meddy has shanghai 2019 points, djoker has paris 2019 points, dubai 2020 points.


If Medvedev wins Indian wells he will be suddenly 400 points behind in ranking and can get interesting if he plays vienna or wins paris again and become no. 1 in rankings

However year end no. 1 is a different ball game. That is it will include 2021 only.
Djoker has great advantage there.

Medvedev need to win both IW and Paris to be close to Djokovic
Then Turim decides
 

Martin J

Professional
Honestly, it would be a travesty if Djokovic doesn't end up as #1 at the end of the year. Three majors in his pocket plus another final, that's a resume that should guarantee you a top position, I don't really care about ranking points in this unique case.
Same goes for Borg's 1978, he should have been number one that year.
 

The Fedfather

Hall of Fame
Honestly, it would be a travesty if Djokovic doesn't end up as #1 at the end of the year. Three majors in his pocket plus another final, that's a resume that should guarantee you a top position, I don't really care about ranking points in this unique case.
Same goes for Borg's 1978.
It would be weird and maybe wouldn't accurately reflect who was overall the best player (depending on how Daniil performs from here though), but at the same time, it wouldn't be a travesty. The tennis season is considerably longer than 8 weeks, it's a Year end #1. For players and fans the Slams are at an incredible level of importance but really, other tournaments are not meaningless, shouldn't be viewed that way.
 

Martin J

Professional
It would be weird and maybe wouldn't accurately reflect who was overall the best player (depending on how Daniil performs from here though), but at the same time, it wouldn't be a travesty. The tennis season is considerably longer than 8 weeks, it's a Year end #1. For players and fans the Slams are at an incredible level of importance but really, other tournaments are not meaningless, shouldn't be viewed that way.
I know and I agree in general, but this is a very unique situation where a player is basically a holder of all four Slams and for me, that's the player of the year regardless of the ranking points.
 

The Fedfather

Hall of Fame
I know and I agree in general, but this is a very unique situation where a player is basically a holder of all four Slams and for me, that's the player of the year regardless of the ranking points.
Don't they have that as a separate ITF award? I mean, they can't bend the rules of the regular race just to give the YE#1 to someone, even a holder of the 3 Slams in the season. To me that would be more weird.
 

Martin J

Professional
Don't they have that as a separate ITF award? I mean, they can't bend the rules of the regular race just to give the YE#1 to someone, even a holder of the 3 Slams in the season. To me that would be more weird.
Wasn't talking about ITF or ATP or any other official awards, these are just my thoughts on this matter.
 

Tarkovsky

Rookie
Medvedev:

This is possible," he said when asked if it was possible to become number one in the world. "I must keep working and try to achieve it in the next year or when the opportunity arises."

Did he mean #1 in the weekly rankings which include covid points?

If I understand correctly, YE#1 is given to 2021 points + WTF
 

kevaninho

Hall of Fame
I think its very possible , at this point, that Med goes on a slump for the rest of the year after the high of winning a slam.

I dont think he will be too bothered about YE#1 , and chasing it, when hes a decent bit behind.
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
No prob if you wanna rank Fed co- or even sole #1 for '17, it's just that I like ma boy better for '99. Let me put it this way. I think you'll agree that the '99 Wimby and YEC finals are among the most dominant performances ever, and you know how I feel about Rafa's run at '17 RG. I don't think either of Fed's '17 finals (ditto '13 Novak's) is in the same class. An ATG performance Down Under for sure, and I understand the Wimby comparison isn't entirely fair cuz Fed never got a chance to show his best vs. an injured opponent - yes, I know he won the event without dropping a set, with 62.2% in GW - but then Pete had even worse luck with that untimely herniated disc, no?

That's what I mean by quality > quantity. Maybe this is overemphasizing the subjective stuff, but not in my book. To me such considerations are fair game.

All that said I'd never run the #s on Dre's 99 USO run cuz I figured his GW% wouldn't be that high thx to the grueling (and underrated) final vs. Martin, but I see he actually won 62.6% (144/230) for the fortnight, vs. '17 Rafa's 59.5% (160/269). That's a pretty strong showing on HC and definitely makes me rethink my '99 ranking... but then there's that 5-setter again. :happydevil:

So maybe I should just declare Pete/Dre, Rafa/Novak and Rafa/Fed co-#1s for '99, '13 and '17. Still think Pistol's case is stronger, but if '60 Gonzales can claim to be #1 despite missing 2/3 of the year it might make sense to be more flexible with co-rankings.

But then that brings Novak up to 8 YE #1s, coequal with Pancho, which doesn't feel right after last year's depleted season. So I'm not quite there yet. Maybe I should make an exception here and there but I prefer a more across-the-board approach.
1. Yeah, obviously 99 Wim final and 99 YEC final are amongst the most dominant performaces in the open era.
2. Nadal's GW% in USO 17 is 141/212 (66.5%) (incl. TBs). But then his draw was so easy that ....
3. Can't class fed's Wim 17 perf with Nadal's RG 2017 perf dominance wise, but still significant credit has to go to fed for no sets dropped at Wim (only 2nd in open era).
4. Gonzales in 1960, he played the biggest part of the season and retired after it:

These were the final standings published in the press:

Gonzalez 49-8
Rosewall 32-25
Segura 22-28
Olmedo 11-44
1960

I have Gonzalez at 51-9

48-9 in tour matches

3-0 in tournaments

_______________________________


TOUR MATCHES

48-9 in World Series (Jan. 28-May 1) against Rosewall (19-5), Olmedo (12-3), Segura (15-1) and Trabert (2-0)

I have the WS almost fully documented at https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/ind...nzalez-rosewall-segura-olmedo-trabert.552141/

As in the '59 WS, there were no best-of-five matches. Most of Gonzalez's matches were best-of-three, with a handful of pro-sets.

Gonzalez's final tally was published as 49-8 but I have changed it to 48-9 because I have found 9 confirmed losses. I have not found every one of his wins but I know that there were 57 stands in total.

I think occasionally final figures for a WS could be slightly off. As I noted for the 1950 season, Tennis Base has found 29 wins for Gonzalez in the world series against Kramer, and the newspapers reported the same number at the time, though in histories Gonzalez is usually credited with only 27 wins.


_______________________________


TOURNAMENTS

3-0 in Tuscaloosa Pro (May 11-16)


Gonzalez then went into his first retirement, as he had announced sometime around the start of the year. But early in December 1960, Kramer announced publicly that he had gotten Gonzalez to sign up for one more year. "I need the money," said Gonzalez, as quoted in McCauley.
That's 57 matches in the world series alone and 60 matches in that year - not an insufficient number of matches at all.

I have Gonzalez at 20-5 vs Rosewall that year, not 19-5 with surface wise split up going like this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales–Rosewall_rivalry (I filled in this page with help from @NoMercy, so its more accurate than most)

Wood/Canvas: Gonzales 13, Rosewall 4
Grass: Gonzales 4, Rosewall 1
Clay: Gonzales 3, Rosewall 0

He dominated him on every surface there was.
Obliterated others.

Simply quite more dominant record wise and on all surfaces.

Also Gonzales probably only missed around 1/2 of the season if we look at it matches wise/importance wise. World series was simply considerably more important than either one of French Pro or Wembley Pro (US Pro was weak in 1960).
Sampras won Wimbledon and made 3R of RG in the 2 slams that he played out of 4.
 
Last edited:
Top