Federer No.1 at the end of 2014

Nathaniel_Near said:
Then I would state that he'd still be less deserving than at least some of the Slam winners, even though he himself wouldn't necessarily be undeserving.
Click to expand...

I see your point, but I don't think it would be at least some slam winners.
As of now,
Djoko has 1 slam, 3 Masters, a slam RU, 5 finals in total and h2h vs. top-10 9-4
Rafa has 1 slam, a Masters, a slam RU, 7 finals in total and h2h vs. top-10 6-4
Fed has a Masters, a slam RU and 8 finals in total and a 12-4 h2h vs. top-10
Stan has a slam, a Masters, 3 finals in total and a 6-1 h2h vs. top-10
Cilic has a slam (obviously, neither Cilic nor Wawrinka are really in contention though)

If he were to become nr. 1, if he - at the very least - need a Masters and a WTF.
That would give him a WTF, two Masters, a slam RU and 10 (or more) finals in total, a possible DC (not that relevant, but everything counts here) and an unknown but dominant head vs. top-10 - say 19-6 or so.

You would still be able to make a case for Novak then (a slam and 3 Masters), but I can't see the case for neither Rafa, Stan or Cilic.
It would be a season with no dominant player, where Fed was the most consistent, got to the most finals, did the best vs. the top-10 and won the 5th biggest price.

Either way, I'm pretty sure Novak takes it, who's the only one with a fair claim to it as it stands right now.
 
He could've won both Wimbledon and the US Open if things had played out just a little bit differently:cry::cry: this hurts my soul
 
Fedniaki would not deserve it without at least 1 major I reckon. He can't do that so it would be a pointless #1 and that's even if he does it which I also doubt very much.
 
Chanwan said:
I see your point, but I don't think it would be at least some slam winners.
As of now,
Djoko has 1 slam, 3 Masters, a slam RU, 5 finals in total and h2h vs. top-10 9-4
Rafa has 1 slam, a Masters, a slam RU, 7 finals in total and h2h vs. top-10 6-4
Fed has a Masters, a slam RU and 8 finals in total and a 12-4 h2h vs. top-10
Stan has a slam, a Masters, 3 finals in total and a 6-1 h2h vs. top-10
Cilic has a slam (obviously, neither Cilic nor Wawrinka are really in contention though)

If he were to become nr. 1, if he - at the very least - need a Masters and a WTF.
That would give him a WTF, two Masters, a slam RU and 10 (or more) finals in total, a possible DC (not that relevant, but everything counts here) and an unknown but dominant head vs. top-10 - say 19-6 or so.

You would still be able to make a case for Novak then (a slam and 3 Masters), but I can't see the case for neither Rafa, Stan or Cilic.
It would be a season with no dominant player, where Fed was the most consistent, got to the most finals, did the best vs. the top-10 and won the 5th biggest price.

Either way, I'm pretty sure Novak takes it, who's the only one with a fair claim to it as it stands right now.
Click to expand...

Very good point. People forget that for Federer to be the Year end number 1 at the end of the year, he needs to have an outstandingly good end of the year AND Djokovic needs to have a very disappointing end of the year.

That would mean that he Federer would have more titles and a better H2H against top-10 than now, and Djokovic would have the same number of titles as now and a worse H2H against top 10 players, or worse, the same H2H against top 10 players because he lost to lower ranked players!

In this case, would it be so wrong for the loser of a very close Wimbledon final to be ahead of the winner, the rest of the season being at a quiet clear advantage of Fed?

Or in other word, would Djokovic be a rightful YE1 if he fails to defend titles during the indoor season, while Federer sweep it?

I think the ranking is very fair and reflect very well who the best player was. In most case, it is so clear there is no discussion, but sometimes it isn't (see 2003 recently). But it's fair, and it doesn't only reflect what happens in slams finals, but what happens during the 56 weeks of the season.
 
If Federer sweeps the rest of the season he would of been the most consistent player and a worthy #1 considering no one else won more than #1 slam and his likely closest peer would have only won it by the skin of their teeth.

It would show how weak the top players were if they couldn't capitalize on winning their majors ;)
 
Flash O'Groove said:
Very good point. People forget that for Federer to be the Year end number 1 at the end of the year, he needs to have an outstandingly good end of the year AND Djokovic needs to have a very disappointing end of the year.

That would mean that he Federer would have more titles and a better H2H against top-10 than now, and Djokovic would have the same number of titles as now and a worse H2H against top 10 players, or worse, the same H2H against top 10 players because he lost to lower ranked players!

In this case, would it be so wrong for the loser of a very close Wimbledon final to be ahead of the winner, the rest of the season being at a quiet clear advantage of Fed?

Or in other word, would Djokovic be a rightful YE1 if he fails to defend titles during the indoor season, while Federer sweep it?

I think the ranking is very fair and reflect very well who the best player was. In most case, it is so clear there is no discussion, but sometimes it isn't (see 2003 recently). But it's fair, and it doesn't only reflect what happens in slams finals, but what happens during the 56 weeks of the season.
Click to expand...

Agree - except for the 56 weeks point (you have a very long year, where ever you live ;-) )
 
Looks like lot of folks here are upset that it is a possibility that Fed can be No.1

It would be interesting if Fed starts the fall season with a win at Shanghai.
 
NatF said:
If Federer sweeps the rest of the season he would of been the most consistent player and a worthy #1 considering no one else won more than #1 slam and his likely closest peer would have only won it by the skin of their teeth.

It would show how weak the top players were if they couldn't capitalize on winning their majors ;)
Click to expand...

Completely agree with this post. Whoever ends the year #1 deserves it. It'll be Novak though of course.
 
It will already be huge if he manages to get in the top 2 ranking by the end of this season. Because that increases his chances of winning a slam in the next season (especially if Djokovic gets Nadal in his half)
 
Flash O'Groove said:
Very good point. People forget that for Federer to be the Year end number 1 at the end of the year, he needs to have an outstandingly good end of the year AND Djokovic needs to have a very disappointing end of the year.

That would mean that he Federer would have more titles and a better H2H against top-10 than now, and Djokovic would have the same number of titles as now and a worse H2H against top 10 players, or worse, the same H2H against top 10 players because he lost to lower ranked players!

In this case, would it be so wrong for the loser of a very close Wimbledon final to be ahead of the winner, the rest of the season being at a quiet clear advantage of Fed?

Or in other word, would Djokovic be a rightful YE1 if he fails to defend titles during the indoor season, while Federer sweep it?

I think the ranking is very fair and reflect very well who the best player was. In most case, it is so clear there is no discussion, but sometimes it isn't (see 2003 recently). But it's fair, and it doesn't only reflect what happens in slams finals, but what happens during the 56 weeks of the season.
Click to expand...

Totally agree....IF Fed happens to finish the year as number 1 then all it highlights is how open the year has been and that Fed has shown greatest consistency.

With that said, I'd rate Novak as at least a 90% chance to finish the year at number 1. As mentioned, Fed would have to win another 1000 tournament and the WTF and rely on Novak going out early...highly unlikely to happen.
 
SuperHead said:
Just imagine, after the awful year he had last year in 2013- his ranking going as low as No.8 in the world- it was hard to tell if he would even qualify for the WTF. However this year has been totally different- he has won 3 titles including a Masters 1000, climbed back to No.3, and is now even ahead of Nadal in the Emirates ATP Race to London at No.2, behind Djokovic by only 1,130 points. There is a great chance for him to overtake Novak to finish the year No.1.
Click to expand...

It would be tremendous, but given how well Djok's played indoors the past couple of years, it's a tall order.

Basically Fred would have to go on an epic tear while Djok would need to keep mailing in appearances. Not impossible, but a tall order.

Making it through Cilic in NY and likely winning there would have already vaulted him in front in the YE race -- or eking out that win in SW19.

Personally I think that if he has great results during the indoor swing, the window might open in Melbourne.

But the rise of Cilic could very well end the Big Three's monopoly on the #1 spot for good.
 
Semantically speaking, all YE #1 shows is who won the most points. Its not like they say "best player". Just number 1. Its not anyones fault that the two terms are used interchangably by most.

Everyone knows that Djokovic and Nadal were the best players when it mattered the most. Barely.

YE #1 is just an achievement, like a trophy, it doesnt say you were the best, just the best at one thing, in this case, point gathering.
 
Chico said:
LOL at Fed fanboys wishing undeserving slamless #1 YE for Fed.

If anyone else was to be slamless YE #1 they would be burning him at stake here.
Click to expand...

Isn't that rich, coming from a guy who thought Nadal didn't have the best year in 2013 out of all the players, when he won more slams and Masters 1000 than any other player!

Hypocrisy at it's best!!!!

sadly, Chico, will never go down in annuls of TTW posters as those that he hopes to emulate.....
 
bullfan said:
Isn't that rich, coming from a guy who thought Nadal didn't have the best year in 2013 out of all the players, when he won more slams and Masters 1000 than any other player!

Hypocrisy at it's best!!!!

sadly, Chico, will never go down in annuls of TTW posters as those that he hopes to emulate.....
Click to expand...

Well you have to admit that in that post of his, he does have a point.
 
Smasher08 said:
It would be tremendous, but given how well Djok's played indoors the past couple of years, it's a tall order.

Basically Fred would have to go on an epic tear while Djok would need to keep mailing in appearances. Not impossible, but a tall order.

Making it through Cilic in NY and likely winning there would have already vaulted him in front in the YE race -- or eking out that win in SW19.

Personally I think that if he has great results during the indoor swing, the window might open in Melbourne.

But the rise of Cilic could very well end the Big Three's monopoly on the #1 spot for good.
Click to expand...
Djokovic has less points to defend than Federer does at the AO (SF appearance vs a QF appearance) so I'd say Djokovic will pull right ahead at that point, even if Federer does well during the indoor swing..
 
None of what's written changes my mind. If Federer were to finish #1, then I'd think that at least Nole and also possibly Nadal would've deserved it more based on winning Majors. I wouldn't see it as sacrilege though.
 
Gustavo Kuerten said:
Not suspicious at all to make such a remarkable comeback at the age of 33 ;)
Click to expand...

Not really, because it's not like he replicated his prime form. Besides it's not like competition is as tough in 2006, so even past his prime, he can still do some damage.

I mean no younger greats in sight and other people are declining with him.
 
Djokovic having to defend no less than 4000 points from last year excellent end of season, and Federer having only 1140 pts. to defend, suggests that chances are on Federer's racquet more than in Nole's, given the present difference of points: 1130.
 
Djokovic defending points has nothing to do with it. Federer is down almost 4k(3980) in the rankings, he's only down 1130 in the Race which is what matters and to which defending points matters not a darn as an irrelevant consideration.
 
Yep, I've mixed up the points, the real ranking difference not considering Race is 3980 points at the moment...not impossible, but hard to imagine that Federer will make it.
 
Last edited:
Enga said:
YE #1 is just an achievement, like a trophy, it doesnt say you were the best, just the best at one thing, in this case, point gathering.
Click to expand...

This is either the best troll poast I've ever witnessed, or the most epick fail in Gumpian world history.

Very, very hard to say which.
 
Flash O'Groove said:
Very good point. People forget that for Federer to be the Year end number 1 at the end of the year, he needs to have an outstandingly good end of the year AND Djokovic needs to have a very disappointing end of the year.

That would mean that he Federer would have more titles and a better H2H against top-10 than now, and Djokovic would have the same number of titles as now and a worse H2H against top 10 players, or worse, the same H2H against top 10 players because he lost to lower ranked players!

In this case, would it be so wrong for the loser of a very close Wimbledon final to be ahead of the winner, the rest of the season being at a quiet clear advantage of Fed?

Or in other word, would Djokovic be a rightful YE1 if he fails to defend titles during the indoor season, while Federer sweep it?

I think the ranking is very fair and reflect very well who the best player was. In most case, it is so clear there is no discussion, but sometimes it isn't (see 2003 recently). But it's fair, and it doesn't only reflect what happens in slams finals, but what happens during the 56 weeks of the season.
Click to expand...

Question for Fed fans. Was Jelena Jankovic deserving YE #1 in 2008?

There were 4 different slam winners that year and JJ was the most consistent player with 2 slam SFs plus one F, lost close contested US Open final to Serena, was sweeping indoors season beating both Venus and Serena (and everyone else), ...

I am sure she and WTA ranking system, were heavily criticized here for JJ being slamless YE #1, likely by the same people who are trying to justify Federer's quite similar possible YE #1 now.
 
Last edited:
Backspin1183 said:
Fed this Fed that! Nadal owns Fed on outdoor hardcourts. 8-2.
Click to expand...

Oh and the h2h. Nadal has nothing on Federer achievement-wise on HC's, never has and never will. That's all that matters. Nadal can beat up on broken back ******* as many times as he wants, he's not breaking any of his HC records.
 
Chico said:
Question for Fed fans. Was Jelena Jankovic deserving YE #1 in 2008?

There were 4 different slam winners that year and JJ was the most consistent player with 2 slam SFs plus one F, lost close contested US Open final to Serena, was sweeping indoors season beating both Venus and Serena (and everyone else), ...

I am sure she and WTA ranking system, were heavily criticized here for JJ being slamless YE #1, likely by the same people who are trying to justify Federer's quite similar possible YE #1 now.
Click to expand...

My answer is yes. The whole 'must have a slam' camp is just plain illogical in my view. There's more to tennis than winning titles, and there's more to the calendar than slams. The only way to avoid this 'problem' is to make the rest of the year irrelevant, which would not only be bad for the sport but is illogical: tennis is a near-year-round grind and consistency/sustainability is just as important as flashes of excellence.
 
Bryan Swartz said:
My answer is yes. The whole 'must have a slam' camp is just plain illogical in my view. There's more to tennis than winning titles, and there's more to the calendar than slams. The only way to avoid this 'problem' is to make the rest of the year irrelevant, which would not only be bad for the sport but is illogical: tennis is a near-year-round grind and consistency/sustainability is just as important as flashes of excellence.
Click to expand...

Exactly. It is fans mistake they equate winning majors with YE #1

If that is the case, you are seriously undermining titles won at other parts of the world and that is not good for the game.

If ATP thinks it is really relevant, they may introduce a prize for best performance at majors.
 
Chico said:
Question for Fed fans. Was Jelena Jankovic deserving YE #1 in 2008?

There were 4 different slam winners that year and JJ was the most consistent player with 2 slam SFs plus one F, lost close contested US Open final to Serena, was sweeping indoors season beating both Venus and Serena (and everyone else), ...

I am sure she and WTA ranking system, were heavily criticized here for JJ being slamless YE #1, likely by the same people who are trying to justify Federer's quite similar possible YE #1 now.
Click to expand...

Nope, it likely isn't the same people. I do not think Jankovic deserved year end #1 in 2008 and do not think Federer deserves year end #1 in 2014, no matter how the rest of the year plays out.

If you can find a specific poster who said that Jankovic did not deserve #1 in 2008 but is now saying that Federer would deserve #1 in 2014, then you should call that poster out directly. As it is, you haven't shown that anyone has done what you claim and you are just wildly throwing out accusations.
 
My opinion is that slam wins should bump up from 2000 to 3000 points with everything else remaining the same. This would make it even more difficult for someone to become #1 without winning a slam in the previous year.
 
jhhachamp said:
My opinion is that slam wins should bump up from 2000 to 3000 points with everything else remaining the same. This would make it even more difficult for someone to become #1 without winning a slam in the previous year.
Click to expand...

I don't think this is a good idea. It's not only about winning, it's also about overall consistency.

The system is great. We have slams to measure domination and rankings to measure consistency.

I mean just because you win a major, that doesn't excuse you from losing early in other majors and not winning masters and WTF.

I think no slam winners deserve to be nr.1. Because that means their overall performance in slams is better. It's hard to become nr.1 in any case.
 
jhhachamp said:
My opinion is that slam wins should bump up from 2000 to 3000 points with everything else remaining the same. This would make it even more difficult for someone to become #1 without winning a slam in the previous year.
Click to expand...

Are the majors 3 times tougher than Masters ? I think the current point structure is fair. Does not undermine tournaments that are non majors and helps spread the sport globally, making players not just focus on the 4 majors alone.

By increasing the points for majors, a player with a good luck of draw or if it opens up , gets a lot of points as opposed to someone winning a 250 or 500.

You have to factor that in the smaller tournaments players play every day and that compensates to some extent the best of 5 sets / extra match you have to play in majors compared to masters.
 
tennisaddict said:
Are the majors 3 times tougher than Masters ? I think the current point structure is fair. Does not undermine tournaments that are non majors and helps spread the sport globally, making players not just focus on the 4 majors alone.

By increasing the points for majors, a player with a good luck of draw or if it opens up , gets a lot of points as opposed to someone winning a 250 or 500.

You have to factor that in the smaller tournaments players play every day and that compensates to some extent the best of 5 sets / extra match you have to play in majors compared to masters.
Click to expand...

I don't think my idea would have as much impact up and down the rankings as you seem to think. I am not proposing increasing the points for all rounds at the grand slams. I am only proposing increasing the points for winning the event from 2000 to 3000. Reaching the final would still be worth 1200 points and reaching the semis would still be worth 720 points, etc.
 
jhhachamp said:
I don't think my idea would have as much impact up and down the rankings as you seem to think. I am not proposing increasing the points for all rounds at the grand slams. I am only proposing increasing the points for winning the event from 2000 to 3000. Reaching the final would still be worth 1200 points and reaching the semis would still be worth 720 points, etc.
Click to expand...

Maybe 2500 is the right number. That means two finals aren't worth more than 1 win, but 3 finals are worth more than 1 win, which is reasonable to me. Final is a great achievement.
 
Now that Federer has won a title in Shanghai and has reached the final of Basel, he has inched even closer to regaining the World No.1 from Djokovic. Currently he is only 690 points away from Djokovic, but if he wins this title he will be only 490 points away from regaining the No.1 spot and possibly even finishing the year as World No.1.

Chico said:
LOL at Fed fanboys wishing undeserving slamless #1 YE for Fed.

If anyone else was to be slamless YE #1 they would be burning him at stake here.
Click to expand...

I completely disagree that if Federer were to finish No.1 it would be undeserving. The No.1 player would be the player who has done better than the rest, so if you were to win 2 Grand Slams that year, more than anyone else as far as Grand Slams are concerned, and performed poorly in every other tournament, would that make you deserving for YE #1? Absolutely not. Just winning 1 or 2 Grand Slams doesn't make you deserving, it is the overall performance throughout the whole year that counts, and the ranking just reflects that. If Federer finishes World No.1 that means he has has been consistent throughout the year and has performed better than any other player, including the World No.2. So in fact it would be undeserving for the No.2 player, in other words Djokovic, to have finished the year No.1.
 
Fed is obviously tired after beating Karlovic. He might have just enough in the tank to beat Goffin. But he's clearly going to skip Paris. If Nole defends Paris, that sews up YE#1 and London is just about that title and getting momentum for 2015.
 
smoledman said:
Fed is obviously tired after beating Karlovic. He might have just enough in the tank to beat Goffin. But he's clearly going to skip Paris. If Nole defends Paris, that sews up YE#1 and London is just about that title and getting momentum for 2015.
Click to expand...

Fed can skip Paris and still get YE no. 1 mathematically.
 
jhhachamp said:
Nope, it likely isn't the same people. I do not think Jankovic deserved year end #1 in 2008 and do not think Federer deserves year end #1 in 2014, no matter how the rest of the year plays out.

If you can find a specific poster who said that Jankovic did not deserve #1 in 2008 but is now saying that Federer would deserve #1 in 2014, then you should call that poster out directly. As it is, you haven't shown that anyone has done what you claim and you are just wildly throwing out accusations.
Click to expand...

Well if you don't think Federer deserves YE #1, then you're criticizing the ranking system. He probably shouldn't be #2, 3, or 4 either then...in your framework, someone who just won say the AO and quit playing for the rest of the year should be #4.

Really, you're criticizing the ranking system, so you have to come up with an alternative. You could theoretically make winning a Major responsible for enough points that the player would have to be at least #4 a year later, but I think that would really devalue the other tournaments too much and result in too much ranking instability.

What about finishing runner up at a Major? Should that also necessarily prevent a player from being ranked below another player who won a bunch of non-Majors?

I think the current ATP ranking system does a good job of balancing things out and making the appropriate compromises.
 
dh003i said:
Well if you don't think Federer deserves YE #1, then you're criticizing the ranking system. He probably shouldn't be #2, 3, or 4 either then...in your framework, someone who just won say the AO and quit playing for the rest of the year should be #4.
Click to expand...

Yes, I am criticizing the ranking system. I think it is pretty good, but a minor change can improve it. I don't think Federer deserves year end #1 this year, but I see no issue with him being #2, #3, or #4. Your assumptions about my "framework" are incorrect.
 
I would love to see Federer finish 2014 strong (and just a bit behind Djokovic) and then overtake him for #1 by winning the Australian Open next year.
 
Now that Federer has lost in the quarter-finals to Raonic, chances of him becoming No.1 have diminished.

Do you think he can still regain it?
 
Last edited:
10422033_562607873885214_6017997752064728795_n.jpg
 
jhhachamp said:
I would love to see Federer finish 2014 strong (and just a bit behind Djokovic) and then overtake him for #1 by winning the Australian Open next year.
Click to expand...

This could very well happpen. Nole barely held off old Fed this year. Yeah Fed's level isn't the same as it was 9 years ago but everybody else has more injuries and mileage than Fed. Fed is old and level not the same, but he is aging more slowly.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

SuperHead
If Federer becomes No.1, will it be the greatest comeback of all time?
2
Replies
70
Views
4K
jakemcclain32
J
T
Davis Cup finals and Year End Rankings
Replies
2
Views
1K
Chanwan
Chanwan
L
Federer: Year End No.1 2008 IF............
Replies
25
Views
2K
fastdunn
F
r2473
  • Poll Poll
Where will Djokovic be ranked at the end of 2017?
Replies
30
Views
1K
r2473
r2473
marc45
Year-End #1 Article
Replies
9
Views
861
clayqueen
clayqueen
Back
Top