???Not saying that. I'm saying they're close.
That is an argument for not awarding a YE#1, not for resorting to favouring results from the last year.Would you have rather crowned a #1 based off half a year of results? We don't know who would have won Wimbledon last year or would have won the USO had Nadal decided to play.
No.It's best to count the results from the previous year so we get some inkling as to who could have won Wimbledon, and don't punish players for deciding to withdraw for their health.
My argument would have never been that. Interesting how you decided to make such a ridiculous statement. In that scenario it would have been even clearer how absurd is to award a YE#1 based only on part of the year.Imagine if we didn't have the 2nd half of this year. Your argument would be "Djokovic won AO and ATP Cup, so he deserves a full YE#1". This would be untrue, that's not a year of accomplishments. At least with the current system we're counting over 12 months worth of accomplishments.
With the "current" solution the results from the last year gain the main importance, which, considering that they are known, are simple favouring of certain players at the expense of everyone else. I though that the supporters of the player that pretends to fight for the "little man" on the tour would be more understanding, but apparently that is only when his own interests are not questioned.
It is in effect the two year ranking system proposed by Nadal. Back then the same fanbase that now says it is OK to use such system, was ridiculing Nadal's proposal. How times change!