Can Fed be No.1 again?

[Bud]

By the looks of it Nadal won't get to no 1 again as well

Nadal attaining number 1 again wouldn't surprise me, as he's not 30

If Djokovic's form drops even slightly in 2012 (which it will), Nadal will be there breathing down his neck.

 

[DjokovicForTheWin]

There's no way Nadal can be #1 again, he's simply not as good as Djoker. We saw what happens when both play their best. Wouldn't surprise me if Murray soon overtakes Nadal for #2 spot.

 

[Clarky21]

Federer has a great chance to take the number 2 spot by the end of the year. I don't really think anyone is getting the number 1 spot away from Djokovic for the next few years at least,and even then I am not so sure.

 

[Ico]

Nadal attaining number 1 again wouldn't surprise me, as he's not 30

If Djokovic's form drops even slightly in 2012 (which it will), Nadal will be there breathing down his neck.

Because there's no way Nadal's level will drop too, right? Soon Nadal and Federer will have to settle with #3 and #4.

 

[goran_ace]

Djokovic is going to have a ton of points to defend in 2012 and there's no way he can replicate his first half of 2011. That said, looking only at the GS tournaments, because he didn't win the French, he can still pick up points there if he doesn't win the Aussie and with Nadal coming off the clay season the #1 ranking may come down to who wins Wimbledon. Federer theoretically could get to #1 again but I wouldn't bet on it. Without being seeded 1 or 2 at majors he is going to have to a tougher road and more than likely his role is going to be that of spoiler to Nadal or Djokovic.

 

[jackson vile]

Djokovic is going to have a ton of points to defend in 2012 and there's no way he can replicate his first half of 2011. That said, looking only at the GS tournaments, because he didn't win the French, he can still pick up points there if he doesn't win the Aussie and with Nadal coming off the clay season the #1 ranking may come down to who wins Wimbledon. Federer theoretically could get to #1 again but I wouldn't bet on it. Without being seeded 1 or 2 at majors he is going to have to a tougher road and more than likely his role is going to be that of spoiler to Nadal or Djokovic.

I agree, he can do even better in 2012 than 2011. Heck, the olympics will be waiting for him also.

 

[goran_ace]

Wouldn't surprise me if Murray soon overtakes Nadal for #2 spot.

Murray??? Seriously???

Rank Name & Nationality Points
1 Djokovic, Novak (SRB) 13,920
2 Nadal, Rafael (ESP) 11,420
3 Federer, Roger (SUI) 8,380
4 Murray, Andy (GBR) 6,535

 

[Bud]

Because there's no way Nadal's level will drop too, right? Soon Nadal and Federer will have to settle with #3 and #4.

There's no indication Nadal's level is dropping, long-term. He won 3 GS titles in 2010, 1 in 2011 and was a finalist in 2011. He also made a ton of MS1000 finals in 2011. Compare that to Federer

Nadal still has a couple of years to move back and forth between #1 and #2

 

[Clarky21]

There's no indication Nadal's level is dropping, long-term. He won 3 GS titles in 2010, 1 in 2011 and was a finalist in 2011. He also made a ton of MS1000 finals in 2011. Compare that to Federer

Nadal still has a couple of years to move back and forth between #1 and #2

I disagree. His level has dropped tremendously since just last year. It's only going to get worse as the years go on.

 

[DjokovicForTheWin]

Nadal's level hasn't dropped at all, at least not according to the actual facts. It has if you believe in fantasy. In actuality, others have simply stepped it up.

 

[KHSOLO]

Murray??? Seriously???

Rank Name & Nationality Points
1 Djokovic, Novak (SRB) 13,920
2 Nadal, Rafael (ESP) 11,420
3 Federer, Roger (SUI) 8,380
4 Murray, Andy (GBR) 6,535

Amazing how Roger can have those many points and only one title this year

 

[jackson vile]

I disagree. His level has dropped tremendously since just last year. It's only going to get worse as the years go on.

I don't know about tremendously, however Nadal is not giving it his all like the previous years. He is starting to look sloppy at times, and letting things simply go, he just does not seem as focused. At Wim. Novak had a lot to do with that, at other tournaments though it had nothing to do with Novak.

I think the previous year took a lot out of him, and he needs to mentally recharge. We will see what happens next year and USO is not over yet.

 

[TheMagicianOfPrecision]

I dont think so- He doesnt have to.

He will go down as the greatest player who ever walked the earth anyway

 

[Bud]

Murray??? Seriously???

Rank Name & Nationality Points
1 Djokovic, Novak (SRB) 13,920
2 Nadal, Rafael (ESP) 11,420
3 Federer, Roger (SUI) 8,380
4 Murray, Andy (GBR) 6,535

Amazing how Roger can have those many points and only one title this year

He doesn't have nearly as many as it appears as many are coming off before the WTF (including the 1,500 for winning).

Here is the players' current ATP Race totals for 2011: http://live-tennis.eu/race

He's about 300 points behind Murray and in 4th

 

[veroniquem]

Amazing how Roger can have those many points and only one title this year

Especially since his 1 title was a 250.

 

[adventure]

I've seen Sampras, Roger and Djoko play, all at or near their primes.

I believe Djoko is the best out of the three.

In today's game, he's faster than Nadal, and stronger than Federer. As he gains more experience, he'll become even better. My assessment back in '09 was: "the sky's the limit."

This is a BIG call. IMO Roger is the most talented of all time and continues to be. As for Djokovic's current form, well I find it dubious to say the least that a player who pulled out of every 3-5 tournaments because of "illness" could have such a monumental change of form. I also find it difficult to believe that (in my memory anyway) only a few high profile players have been caught using PED's. Petr Korda was one. What kind of tests are they using?

 

[NadalAgassi]

I dont think so- He doesnt have to.

He will go down as the greatest player who ever walked the earth anyway

Yeah since Federer is the guy who won the Grand Slam twice.

 

[FEDERERNADAL13]

Yeah since Federer is the guy who won the Grand Slam twice.

With three GS on grass in one year Imagine the Fed Prime victories from 03-07!!! I wouldn't comment, except for the "Nadal" in your name

 

[NadalAgassi]

With three GS on grass in one year Imagine the Fed Prime victories from 03-07!!! I wouldn't comment, except for the "Nadal" in your name

Federer would have never won a Grand Slam even if 3 of the 4 majors were on grass. He failed to win a French Open for years, a requirement to winning the Grand Slam even with 3 of the 4 majors on grass, and something the superior Laver managed to do twice on route to the Grand Slam, the second one by dismantling that eras Nadal on clay, Ken Rosewall, in the FO final. The only year Federer managed to win the French was 2009, and the idea of Federer winning all 4 slams by that point with his complete non dominance of the game by then, even with 3 majors on grass, is laughable. I wouldn't comment, except for the "Federer" in your name. Your last comment is stupid since I didnt even mention Nadal in my post, or say anything that implied him. Neither Federer or Nadal are in Laver's league, even as a Nadal fan I am not blind to the truth unlike Federer fanboys.

 

[FEDERERNADAL13]

Nadal would have never won a Grand Slam even if 3 of the 4 majors were on grass. He failed to win a French Open for years, a requirement to winning the Grand Slam even with 3 of the 4 majors on grass, and something the superior Laver managed to do twice on route to the Grand Slam. The only year Federer managed to win the French was 2009, and the idea of Federer winning all 4 slams by that point, even with 3 majors on grass, is laughable so I wouldn't comment, except for the "Federer" in your name. Your last comment is stupid since I didnt even mention Nadal in my post, or say anything that implied him. Neither Federer or Nadal are in Laver's league, even as a Nadal fan I am not blind to the truth unlike ****s.

Man, if Fed won every grass slam from 2003-2007, that's 15 slams! I doub;t he'd win em all, but he'd be the heavy favourite at each. Mix in 2008 USO, Wimby and FO 2009, 2010 AO, and you've got 19 slams, plus 5 years of 3 slams. Plus he's have 5+ slams at 3 different slams. That's pretty cool! Assuming he is as good at grass as Wimby makes him look.

 

[NadalAgassi]

Man, if Fed won every grass slam from 2003-2007, that's 15 slams! I doub;t he'd win em all, but he'd be the heavy favourite at each. Mix in 2008 USO, Wimby and FO 2009, 2010 AO, and you've got 19 slams, plus 5 years of 3 slams. Plus he's have 5+ slams at 3 different slams. That's pretty cool! Assuming he is as good at grass as Wimby makes him look.

Sure, but would he have won the GRAND SLAM, the greatest achievement in tennis? No. Let alone doing it twice, something nobody even in the much less competitive WTA has ever done, and the second time at 31 years old after being banned from playing the slams for 5 years. So even with 19 slams, Laver > Federer.

Also if we want to go into what ifs, Laver, Rosewall, Gonzales, possibly Tilden and Budge would all have over 20 slams if people played all 4 slams, all the time, until they retired from tennis completely. Sampras and Federer would have never held the record. Someone like Connors would even be up with Sampras in slam wins, rather than tied with Agassi.

 

[FEDERERNADAL13]

Sure, but would he have won the GRAND SLAM, the greatest achievement in tennis? No. Let alone doing it twice, something nobody even in the much less competitive WTA has ever done, and the second time at 31 years old after being banned from playing the slams for 5 years. So even with 19 slams, Laver > Federer.

Also if we want to go into what ifs, Laver, Rosewall, Gonzales, possibly Tilden and Budge would all have over 20 slams if people played all 4 slams, all the time, until they retired from tennis completely. Sampras and Federer would have never held the record. Someone like Connors would even be up with Sampras in slam wins, rather than tied with Agassi.

I don't want to get into a GOAT debate, but 237 and 23 are nice stats, probably some of the most impressive stats ever!

 

[NadalAgassi]

I don't want to get into a GOAT debate, but 237 and 23 are nice stats, probably some of the most impressive stats ever!

True. Federer is worthy of being considered a top 5 player all time, atleast for now.

 

[FEDERERNADAL13]

True. Federer is worthy of being considered a top 5 player all time, atleast for now.

I think we should speak in eras, since they are all so different

 

[drakulie]

Yeah since Federer is the guy who won the Grand Slam twice.

as other have noted, Laver won 3/4 of his slams on grass in 62 and 69.

Further, in 1962, he played against amateurs as most of the best players in the world were playing in the pro circuit.

I'm quite certain if federer was playing challenger-type players, he would most likely have won the calendar grand slam 5 years in a row if not more.

 

[FEDERERNADAL13]

as other have noted, Laver won 3/4 of his slams on grass in 62 and 69.

Further, in 1962, he played against amateurs.

I'm quite certain if federer was playing challenger-type players, he would most likely have won the calendar grand slam 5 years in a row if not more.

Hey Drak, I have a random question. Have you ever strung for Roger or Rafa? Possibly before Fed was with P1?? I've wondered for a while

 

[OddJack]

Sure baby,

Djoker will come back to earth, and Nadal aleady declining.

Sooooo....who else?

 

[TopFH]

True. Federer is worthy of being considered a top 5 player all time, atleast for now.

Definitely true if Fed was at the top.

 

[flyinghippos101]

It seems unlikely but seeing how remarkably fast Nadal has been slipping in recent months and considering how Djokovic has a LOT to defend next year, then there's still that very small but possible window of opportunity for Rog.

But as I mentioned already ,it's very unlikely. A major Nadal collapse in the next year is definitely less likely than a few costly slip ups by Djokovic. And if Djokovic isn't #1, then I wholly suspect Rafa will be there ready to move in.

 

[drakulie]

Hey Drak, I have a random question. Have you ever strung for Roger or Rafa? Possibly before Fed was with P1?? I've wondered for a while

Nope, haven't had the plesure. The guy I string with, Craig Brotman has strung for both. There is a possibility I may be stringing for Sampras in a few weeks.

 

[NadalAgassi]

as other have noted, Laver won 3/4 of his slams on grass in 62 and 69.

Further, in 1962, he played against amateurs as most of the best players in the world were playing in the pro circuit.

I'm quite certain if federer was playing challenger-type players, he would most likely have won the calendar grand slam 5 years in a row if not more.

If Laver played the 4 Grand Slams every year against only amateurs every year he could have won the Calendar Grand Slam 10 years in a row.

The what ifs could go on forever. However Laver's 69 Grand Slam where he beat an Open field of only professionals (the very best) and where he beat the 60s Nadal equivalent on clay in straight sets to win the French Open en route, far exceeds any achievement of Federer.

As already explained Federer would not have won the Grand Slam even with 3 of 4 slams on grass. The only year he won the French was 2009, by then far past his period of dominance and clearly unable to win 4 slams in a year. Laver had only a couple attempts at it against a field of "professionals" since he was banned from Slam tennis for most of his 20s, and pros werent even allowed to compete in slams until he was 30. He still pulled off the Grand Slam, which Federer even with 3 of 4 slams on grass would have been unable to do, let alone at 31.

 

[drakulie]

If Laver played the 4 Grand Slams every year against only amateurs every year he could have won the Calendar Grand Slam 10 years in a row.

He DID play against only amateurs for SEVERAL YEARS, and guess what???? He only did it once.

Now go to the corner and behave. you are punished for the rest of the day.

 

[NadalAgassi]

He DID play against only amateurs for SEVERAL YEARS, and guess what???? He only did it once.

Because he was BANNED from playing the slams for 5 years straight after winning the Grand Slam as an amateur, before being allowed to play them again against other pros and winning the Grand Slam at 31 (an age Federer will have about as much chance of winning even one major as Victor Trociki). You ****s are funny with your delusions and lack of simple comprehension of anything.

 

[FEDERERNADAL13]

Nope, haven't had the plesure. The guy I string with, Craig Brotman has strung for both. There is a possibility I may be stringing for Sampras in a few weeks.

That's awesome man! I wonder what racket it'll be

 

[drakulie]

Because he was BANNED from playing the slams for 5 years straight after winning the Grand Slam as an amateur,

Quiet!!!!! He wasn't banned from anything. He decided to turn PRO, therefore was not eligible to play against amatuers.

He turned pro AFTER winning his first Grand Slam in 1962. He had several years before that to win more calendar slams against other amatuers and failed to do it.

Go to the corner and behave yourself.

 

[drakulie]

That's awesome man! I wonder what racket it'll be

I'm looking forward to it, but have to wait and see if it will happen.

 

[juanparty]

yeah!! Maybe at Seniors tour.

 

[RF_fan]

Lol. I really wouldn't know but in that case, there is no reason to single out Djoko anyway.
Personally, I disagree. If it was juicing, people would be amazing right away. It takes time to fix losing to certain people, becoming more competitive, accumulating confidence. It doesn't happen overnight. It is clear it's always (or most of the time) a painstaking process.

It kinda did happen overnight, or over Christmas. You have Djokovic losing to Fed in Basel, Shanghai, then losing to Rafa and Fed in WTF and then all of a sudden a big improvement in just a month? It makes sense if you believe in miracles.

 

[sadowsk2]

You think he will retire with 16 slams?

Yep. No doubt

 

[tennisaddict]

First, no I dont think Fed can get back to #1. He has shown he just cant hold it together long enough anymore. He will be like a older Pete or Andre and be able to hold it together for a tournament and win but not enough throughout an entire season to get a #1 ranking.

As for Andy Murray, breathing down Rogers neck??? Really?? Is is close to 2000 points behind Roger in the rankings right now. I dont think that is breathing down anyones neck right now.

Fed can be #1 again on the Champions Tour which he can play after remaining retired for 5 years.

If he can play like he did at the WTF and FO, then yes.

yeah!! Maybe at Seniors tour.

Ok, This thread was from Aug 2011. Fed did it once in July 2012 and could do it again multiple times this year.

@Sentinel

 

[MeatTornado]

Little premature with this bump don't you think? Feels like tempting fate.

 

[ghostofMecir]

Fed can be #1 again on the Champions Tour which he can play after remaining retired for 5 years.

Also, look at all these posts. “It’s impossoble to be #1 in your 30s.” So, it was thought to be next to impossible due to historical evidence, but now that it’s happened once (in 2012) and has a great chance to do it again in 2018, it’s about “Bur but but Favoritism! Closed roof!” What was thought impossible 7 years ago is becoming reality.

 

[tennisaddict]

Little premature with this bump don't you think? Feels like tempting fate.

The night before the event is as much you can delay the "gratification" .

Post match , it becomes more of 'I told you so'.

 

[Sentinel]

Ok, This thread was from Aug 2011. Fed did it once in July 2012 and could do it again multiple times this year.

@Sentinel

Suri for the win, as always.

His predictions never fail to fail.

@stringertom

 

[stringertom]

suresh for the win, as always.

His predictions never fail to fail.

@stringertom

Trying to get me in hot water again, eh? Repoarted for SS!

 

[kOaMaster]

I'm even more surprised about the amount of Nadal-fail in this thread here...