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.
2021 YE #1 Race: Daniil vs. Novak
- Thread starter BGod
- Start date
UnforcedTerror
Hall of Fame
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
We'll see. Either way as I said I don't Daniil takes over
The Fedfather
Legend
Slams are the most important and difficult tournaments, yes, but it's the Year end #1, not Slams #1. 12 months vs 8 weeks.
nolefam_2024
G.O.A.T.
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.
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.
D
Deleted member 771911
Guest
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
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
G.O.A.T.
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.
ibbi
G.O.A.T.
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.
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
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
Sunny014
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
RaulRamirez
Legend
Remarkably, that coincides with my prediction for 2022.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
V
Vamos Rafa Nadal
Guest
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.
Sunny014
Legend
RaulRamirez
Legend
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).
V
Vamos Rafa Nadal
Guest
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
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.
Those are also the only three he implied he'd play outside of Laver.
NonP
Legend
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
Legend
Yes noticed that too. He is totally unaware of ATP points and ranking. He doesn't care at all anymore.
guanzishou
G.O.A.T.
Gee, I didn't realise that Indian Wells hasn't been played yet.... and Basel is cancelled.
abmk
Bionic Poster
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)
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
Legend
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:
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.
Case in point:
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
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:
yes you are right, somehow i added 1000 imagenery to medvedev.
1990 should be big enough to hold it till end of the year.
Nadalgaenger
G.O.A.T.
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
Legend
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. 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.
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.
Djokovic_is_the_best#1
Bionic Poster
Novak won’t play much for rest of this year in my opinion
NonP
Legend
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.
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
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
travlerajm
Talk Tennis Guru
I think there is more chance that Djokovic pushes his aging body too hard down the stretch and injures himself than the chance that he skips a big tournament.
Martin J
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, he should have been number one that year.
Same goes for Borg's 1978, he should have been number one that year.
roysid
Hall of Fame
Once he recovers from the loss, he is likely to play for the points required to seal year end no. 1
Like hw did last year, played vienna and then skipped Paris because 1000 points was safe
The Fedfather
Legend
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.
Third Serve
Talk Tennis Guru
If Medvedev somehow reaches the YE-#1 over a guy with three Slams and another final, it'll be the biggest farce I've seen in the rankings since... actually not that long ago with the COVID ranking shenanigans, but still.
Martin J
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.
The Fedfather
Legend
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
Hall of Fame
Wasn't talking about ITF or ATP or any other official awards, these are just my thoughts on this matter.
Tarkovsky
Semi-Pro
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
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
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.
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:
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:
