Says who? For Djokovic it's equally important. I guess a 17 slam winner has a better idea of what starts are important in tennis than a random forum guy?Who cares, this is like 100 times less important than the slam record.
Says who? For Djokovic it's equally important. I guess a 17 slam winner has a better idea of what starts are important in tennis than a random forum guy?
"Crap at Slams"Too bad he's crap at slams.
Still languishing down there at 17....
So Nadal has won 2 more slams than Djokovic, and he's also won more French Opens and more US Opens....
"Crap at Slams"
3rd most Slams won
LOL
Tahmid is a good guy, passionate about tennis, I watch his Youtube videos regularly.
Too bad he's crap at slams.
Still languishing down there at 17....
So Nadal has won 2 more slams than Djokovic, and he's also won more French Opens and more US Opens....
Nadal was a more consistent player in those years while Federer also skipped clay. He also missed out on at least another couple of months at number 1 just by losing to Del Potro in Indian Wells.Never thought I'd see Fed's weeks at #1 being threatened to this nature that record felt even more safer than slams record.
Fed missed a trick somewhere here, Nadal gained LOADS of weeks at #1 before Djokovic's return and Fed and Nadal were both winning the same number of slams across 17-18 and Masters (? can't remember)
Fed only gained 8 weeks
17 slams and being crap? that is not right and Djokovic won more AO's and wimbledonsToo bad he's crap at slams.
Still languishing down there at 17....
So Nadal has won 2 more slams than Djokovic, and he's also won more French Opens and more US Opens....
lol straight into the hall of fame for this oneToo bad he's crap at slams.
Still languishing down there at 17....
So Nadal has won 2 more slams than Djokovic, and he's also won more French Opens and more US Opens....
Nadal was a more consistent player in those years while Federer also skipped clay. He also missed out on at least another couple of months at number 1 just by losing to Del Potro in Indian Wells.
"Crap at Slams"
3rd most Slams won
LOL
I think it’s clear that’s what he was referring to.Only OE. Only men.
Brace yourself.
I think it’s clear that’s what he was referring to.
Point stands regardlessOnly OE. Only men.
Brace yourself.
Yeah, because of the ATP protecting his points from 2019, he's basically a lock to end 2020 as #1, even if he loses in the first round at RG and Thiem wins the whole thing. Thiem would then be #2 at best--maybe even #3--with win-win-final that he wasn't far from winning at the only three slams contested this year, which would be hilarious (in a very bad way, of course).
But hey, the most important thing is to make the record chase thrilling, isn't? Who cares about anyone winning and being #1 if they're not part of the 'Big 3'?
Yes, he will have to be good at AO to be sure for record in March, but if he fails Rafa or Thiem would must win themselves, which could not happen too... Anyway, there is double sunshine to gain massive amount of points... Practically Novak should have middle 2016 like drop to lose one.With this new system, shouldn't Djokovic skip Bercy and play Vienna, for instance? If he needs 1 indoors tournament before the WTF, maybe it'd be smarter. Bercy will bring him 0 pt even if he wins the title, and the best players will be there. Playing Vienna is practically 500 easy points in the pocket.
But yeah, with these 400 points in Roma he is almost certain to end the year 1. If he wants to beat Federer's record (310) nothing is certain though. He has 650 points to defend at the ATP cup and 2000 for the AO. If he ends the year with less than 1000 pts more than Nadal or Thiem, he will be practically obligated to win the AO if he wants to stay #1 until the double sunshine in March.... Every point will count
But Djokovic would have won both of the Masters played this year so far and the AO. Thiem would have won 2 slams. Djokovic is also the only person to have had a 25+ match win streak this year so saying his YE#1 is undeserved is disingenuous at best and outright lying at the worst.Yeah, because of the ATP protecting his points from 2019, he's basically a lock to end 2020 as #1, even if he loses in the first round at RG and Thiem wins the whole thing. Thiem would then be #2 at best--maybe even #3--with win-win-final that he wasn't far from winning at the only three slams contested this year, which would be hilarious (in a very bad way, of course).
But hey, the most important thing is to make the record chase thrilling, isn't? Who cares about anyone winning and being #1 if they're not part of the 'Big 3'?
But Djokovic would have won both of the Masters played this year so far and the AO. Thiem would have won 2 slams. Djokovic is also the only person to have had a 25+ match win streak this year so saying his YE#1 is undeserved is disingenuous at best and outright lying at the worst.
Moreover, Djokovic didn't win any weeks from the COVID break. You want to claim the ATP is biased in his favor when they could have easily gone the other way? No system was going to be perfect. This system benefited anyone who went far at ATP events, which is mostly already high-ranked players. Lower-ranked players have less mobility due to the current system, #200 can't be #100 as easily and #3 can't be #1 as easily.
How many weeks would Djokovic have right now if they didn't stop the counting 6 months ago? 311?
So stop saying that it won't be deserved. Djokovic got robbed this year.
Why? We missed only 1 slam?2020 is a short season due to COVID-19 pandemic lockdowns. Tennis in the "bubble" with no spectators and depleted field is never the same.
It doesn't make any sense to hand out the YE #1 at the end of this year.
Djokovic won 2 slams and an additional final + 4 masters in 2016, who was the YE#1 that year?Bolded: so now 2 M1000 and a Major are better than 2 Majors and a Major final?
Your "streak" argument is already counted in his tournament wins, so you are double counting.
Stating that "no system is perfect" is a blanket statement to cover for who benefits the most, which is entirely based on previous year's results, and that is hindsight on which the things are already predetermined (that Djokovic stands to benefit the most).
Djokovic won 2 slams and an additional final in 2016, who was the YE#1 that year?
You wouldn't have complained that time you troll
Which is why he lost 22 weeks in rankings. Glad we both agreeI didn't realise that half of the year was not played in 2016.
Djokovic won 2 slams and an additional final + 4 masters in 2016, who was the YE#1 that year?
You wouldn't have complained that time you troll
Which is why he lost 22 weeks in rankings. Glad we both agree
It was a culmination of 2 thingsDunno--did Murray end up #1 in 2016 mainly because of the points he scored in 2015? My memory is a bit hazy on that score. Could you please help me remember?
They just did, since the week of the USOWow. You mean they haven't resumed rankings yet (or that they just did) since freezing them mid-April?
Which is why he lost 22 weeks in rankings. Glad we both agree
The race for 2020:Dunno--did Murray end up #1 in 2016 mainly because of the points he scored in 2015? My memory is a bit hazy on that score. Could you please help me remember?
2011 or 2012 I am guessing?
Why? We missed only 1 slam?
Not saying that. I'm saying they're close. 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. 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.Bolded: so now 2 M1000 and a Major are better than 2 Majors and a Major final?
Your "streak" argument is already counted in his tournament wins, so you are double counting.
Stating that "no system is perfect" is a blanket statement to cover for who benefits the most, which is entirely based on previous year's results, and that is hindsight on which the things are already predetermined (that Djokovic stands to benefit the most).
But it did come basically to Murray winning three 500 tournaments after RG while Djokovic 0. Novak not participating in anything bellow Masters level after the RG, and Murray playing pretty much everything, was the Novak #YE1 killer that year.It was a culmination of 2 things
1) Murray having a poor 2nd half in 2015. Djokovic having almost an impeccable 2nd half in 2015
2) Djokovic going off the rails post French Open, and Murray going on a rampage in the second half of 2016
Djokovic couldn't defend his large volume of previous year points added to Murray having a near flawless second half sealed the deal