Four ways that Murray could become #2 at the FO or Wimby

Leublu tennis

Leublu tennis

Legend
I put together some likely results at the FO and made some assumptions through Wimby on how Murray could end up as #2.

Federer has 10470 points and is defending 1400 at the FO. As of the Q, this gives him 10470 +360 – 1400 = 9430 points

Murray has 9020 points and is defending 150. As of the Q, he has 9020 +360 – 150 = 9230 points.

Variation #1: Federer loses to Monfils, while Murray beats Gonzalez.

Federer stays at 9430, but Murray then has 9230 + 360 (more points), or 9590.

Variation #2: Federer loses to Monfils, then plays at Halle, which he wins. This will give him 9430 + 250 – 450 (points he is defending at Halle) = 9230 points.

Murray plays at Queens. He has no points to defend and if he wins, he will have 9230 from the RO (if he lost to Gonzalez) + 250 = 9480.

Variation #3: Now we go to Wimby. Federer is defending 1400, so he goes in with 9230 – 1400 = 7830 points. Murray is defending 500 so, going into Wimby he will have 9480 – 500 = 8980 points.

If Murray gets to the Q, he will have 8980 + 360 = 9340. If Federer gets to the semis, he will have 7830 + 720 = 8550. If Federer wins, he will have 7830 + 2000 = 9830. If Murray gets to the finals, he will have 8980 + 1200 = 10180.

Variation #4: Federer wins the FO (hooray!) this will give him an additional 1640 points going into Wimby, or 7830 + 1640 = 9470. Murray will have 8980 points. So, if Murray wins, he will have 8980 + 2000 = 10980 points. If Federer gets to the finals, he will have 9470 + 1200 = 10670 points.

I am doing the numbers very late at night, so please check me. All I am trying to say is that there are a variety of ways that Murray could be the new #2.

LT
 
Last edited:
Leublu tennis said:
I put together some likely results at the FO and made some assumptions through Wimby on how Murray could end up as #2.

Federer has 10470 points and is defending 1400 at the FO. As of the Q, this gives him 10470 +360 – 1400 = 9430 points

Murray has 9020 points and is defending 150. As of the Q, he has 9020 +360 – 150 = 9230 points.

Variation #1: Federer loses to Monfils, while Murray beats Gonzalez.

Federer stays at 9430, but Murray then has 9230 + 360 (more points), or 9590.

Variation #2: Federer loses to Monfils, then plays at Halle, which he wins. This will give him 9430 + 250 – 450 (points he is defending at Halle) = 9230 points.

Murray plays at Queens. He has no points to defend and if he wins, he will have 9230 from the RO (if he lost to Gonzalez) + 250 = 9480.

Variation #3: Now we go to Wimby. Federer is defending 1400, so he goes in with 9230 – 1400 = 7830 points. Murray is defending 500 so, going into Wimby he will have 9480 – 500 = 8980 points.

If Murray gets to the Q, he will have 8980 + 360 = 9340. If Federer gets to the semis, he will have 7830 + 720 = 8550. If Federer wins, he will have 7830 + 2000 = 9830. If Murray gets to the finals, he will have 8980 + 1200 = 10180.

Variation #4: Federer wins the FO (hooray!) this will give him an additional 1640 points going into Wimby, or 7830 + 1640 = 9470. Murray will have 8980 points. So, if Murray wins, he will have 8980 + 2000 = 10980 points. If Federer gets to the finals, he will have 9470 + 1200 = 10670 points.

I am doing the numbers very late at night, so please check me. All I am trying to say is that there are a variety of ways that Murray could be the new #2.

LT
Click to expand...


Your numbers are spot on LT.
 
What is amazing is that if Murray becomes #2 before Wimby somehow then Federer could meet Nadal in the semis?
 
Leublu tennis said:
I put together some likely results at the FO and made some assumptions through Wimby on how Murray could end up as #2.

Federer has 10470 points and is defending 1400 at the FO. As of the Q, this gives him 10470 +360 – 1400 = 9430 points

Murray has 9020 points and is defending 150. As of the Q, he has 9020 +360 – 150 = 9230 points.

Variation #1: Federer loses to Monfils, while Murray beats Gonzalez.

Federer stays at 9430, but Murray then has 9230 + 360 (more points), or 9590.

Variation #2: Federer loses to Monfils, then plays at Halle, which he wins. This will give him 9430 + 250 – 450 (points he is defending at Halle) = 9230 points.

Murray plays at Queens. He has no points to defend and if he wins, he will have 9230 from the RO (if he lost to Gonzalez) + 250 = 9480.

Variation #3: Now we go to Wimby. Federer is defending 1400, so he goes in with 9230 – 1400 = 7830 points. Murray is defending 500 so, going into Wimby he will have 9480 – 500 = 8980 points.

If Murray gets to the Q, he will have 8980 + 360 = 9340. If Federer gets to the semis, he will have 7830 + 720 = 8550. If Federer wins, he will have 7830 + 2000 = 9830. If Murray gets to the finals, he will have 8980 + 1200 = 10180.

Variation #4: Federer wins the FO (hooray!) this will give him an additional 1640 points going into Wimby, or 7830 + 1640 = 9470. Murray will have 8980 points. So, if Murray wins, he will have 8980 + 2000 = 10980 points. If Federer gets to the finals, he will have 9470 + 1200 = 10670 points.

I am doing the numbers very late at night, so please check me. All I am trying to say is that there are a variety of ways that Murray could be the new #2.

LT
Click to expand...

is variation #2 the only one that mentions muzza losing to gonzo tomorrow ..... because some of us think that's what's gonna happen?:neutral::-?:confused:
 
Love Game said:
is variation #2 the only one that mentions muzza losing to gonzo tomorrow ..... because some of us think that's what's gonna happen?:neutral::-?:confused:
Click to expand...

I really hope Murray beats Gonzo badly tomorrow. Ever since the Olympics stuff with Blake I can't stand him.
 
norbac said:
I really hope Murray beats Gonzo badly tomorrow. Ever since the Olympics stuff with Blake I can't stand him.
Click to expand...

But why? Blake filed a complaint, and the Olympic Committee reviewed the call and decided that Blake's complaint had no merit (or at least not enough to change the ruling of the umpire). I mean, the umpire was right there, wasn't s/he?

Players are players, and umpires/judges are umpires/judges. It's not a player's job to do the job of the umpire or judge.

I mean, how many times in their lives do players benefit from incorrect line calls? Do they correct the line call and give the point to their opponent?

Besides, that was just one point. It is not the reason Blake lost, is it? :confused:

p.s. I understand your idealistic viewpoint, and maybe youre the type of player to correct the line judge and give your opponent the point; and that is absolutely admirable of you; but very few people are so idealistic, considering that players also have their share of bad calls against them ... so i figure the favorable calls even out the unfavorable calls in the long run.

And that's the reason I give Gonzalez the benefit of the doubt. I'm not going to hold something against him that I am not absolutely sure of, and the one thing I know I am not absolutely sure of is the mind of another human being and what that mind/brain perceives. Only the person, himself, knows what he perceived.

I also am not going to hold him to a higher standard than i hold others to: namely, expecting them to give the point to the opponent when the umpire, line judge has given it to them.

OTOH, i understand about holding grudges against players: my grudges against ljubicic and fish are fading, but i still remember what i have against them (although, my grudges are already fading, so i hope yours can too :D)
 
i am hoping LT will check in tonight and let me know about variation #2, namely:

If variation #2 is altered to murray losing to gonzalez here at RG, and he does NOT will at Queens .............then what? :confused:
 
Love Game said:
But why? Blake filed a complaint, and the Olympic Committee reviewed the call and decided that Blake's complaint had no merit (or at least not enough to change the ruling of the umpire). I mean, the umpire was right there, wasn't s/he?

Players are players, and umpires/judges are umpires/judges. It's not a player's job to do the job of the umpire or judge.

I mean, how many times in their lives do players benefit from incorrect line calls? Do they correct the line call and give the point to their opponent?

Besides, that was just one point. It is not the reason Blake lost, is it? :confused:

p.s. I understand your idealistic viewpoint, and maybe youre the type of player to correct the line judge and give your opponent the point; and that is absolutely admirable of you; but very few people are so idealistic, considering that players also have their share of bad calls against them ... so i figure the favorable calls even out the unfavorable calls in the long run.

And that's the reason I give Gonzalez the benefit of the doubt. I'm not going to hold something against him that I am not absolutely sure of, and the one thing I know I am not absolutely sure of is the mind of another human being and what that mind/brain perceives. Only the person, himself, knows what he perceived.

I also am not going to hold him to a higher standard than i hold others to: namely, expecting them to give the point to the opponent when the umpire, line judge has given it to them.

OTOH, i understand about holding grudges against players: my grudges against ljubicic and fish are fading, but i still remember what i have against them (although, my grudges are already fading, so i hope yours can too :D)
Click to expand...

What are you talking about? The ball did hit Gonzo. The replay showed it clearly.

How can you possibly argue otherwise?
 
Love Game said:
But why? Blake filed a complaint, and the Olympic Committee reviewed the call and decided that Blake's complaint had no merit (or at least not enough to change the ruling of the umpire). I mean, the umpire was right there, wasn't s/he?

Players are players, and umpires/judges are umpires/judges. It's not a player's job to do the job of the umpire or judge.

I mean, how many times in their lives do players benefit from incorrect line calls? Do they correct the line call and give the point to their opponent?

Besides, that was just one point. It is not the reason Blake lost, is it? :confused:

p.s. I understand your idealistic viewpoint, and maybe youre the type of player to correct the line judge and give your opponent the point; and that is absolutely admirable of you; but very few people are so idealistic, considering that players also have their share of bad calls against them ... so i figure the favorable calls even out the unfavorable calls in the long run.

And that's the reason I give Gonzalez the benefit of the doubt. I'm not going to hold something against him that I am not absolutely sure of, and the one thing I know I am not absolutely sure of is the mind of another human being and what that mind/brain perceives. Only the person, himself, knows what he perceived.

I also am not going to hold him to a higher standard than i hold others to: namely, expecting them to give the point to the opponent when the umpire, line judge has given it to them.

OTOH, i understand about holding grudges against players: my grudges against ljubicic and fish are fading, but i still remember what i have against them (although, my grudges are already fading, so i hope yours can too :D)
Click to expand...

I just thought it was very unsportsmanlike of Gonzo, it was clear his racket touched the ball in the replay. To do that at the Olympics is just pretty much what made me lose a whole lot of respect for Gonzo.

I agree with what you said about judges. They're too soft on players these days.

Plus I just want Murrays to kick some butt and prove all the doubters wrong.
 
Last edited:
Love Game said:
is variation #2 the only one that mentions muzza losing to gonzo tomorrow ..... because some of us think that's what's gonna happen?:neutral::-?:confused:
Click to expand...
I guess I do expect Murray to lose and thought that would happen with Cilic. But there are sub-variations to above variations. Too much trouble to do figures late at night.
 
Love Game said:
i am hoping LT will check in tonight and let me know about variation #2, namely:

If variation #2 is altered to murray losing to gonzalez here at RG, and he does NOT will at Queens .............then what? :confused:
Click to expand...
Good morning, Love. You are lucking out today. They don't start the matches until well into the afternoon. But I am up and got more figures for you.

Variation #2A: Federer loses to Monfils, then plays at Halle, which he wins. This will give him 9430 + 250 – 450 (points he is defending at Halle) = 9230 points.

Murray plays at Queens. He has no points to defend so, if he gets to the semis, he will have 9230 from the RO (if he lost to Gonzalez) + 90 = 9320.

Variation #3A: Now we go to Wimby. Federer is defending 1400, so he goes in with 9230 – 1400 = 7830 points. Murray is defending 500 so, going into Wimby he will have 9320 – 500 = 8820 points.

If Murray gets to the Q, he will have 8820 + 360 = 9180. If Federer gets to the semis, he will have 7830 + 720 = 8550. If Federer wins, he will have 7830 + 2000 = 9830. If Murray gets to the finals, he will have 8820 + 1200 = 10020.

There are other variations as well, due to a multitude of permutations of outcome. The point is that the two players are so close that one level up or down in a match can change the standings.

The game with Gonzalez today will really change things if Murray wins.

LT
 
It looks like it's almost going to turn out to be harder for Roger to keep #2 than for Andy to take it right now, interesting times.
 
Well, its going to get tougher for Murray after the Wimby. For the rest of the year he will have to defend/drop 5200 points. Federer will have 3760 and Djokovic, don't forget him, has 4100. Still lots of tennis ahead, but its turning into an interesting year.

I expected Federer to slowly fail this year, but thought that Nadal would stay way up there this year and next. Murray/Djokovic was always a toss for me. I like Djokovic as an individual but Murray has been a much tougher player on the court.
 
in a way, this part of the year is Murrays serve, where he has the advantage to go ahead, then at the end of the year its Fed's serve. lol
 
norbac said:
I just thought it was very unsportsmanlike of Gonzo, it was clear his racket touched the ball in the replay. To do that at the Olympics is just pretty much what made me lose a whole lot of respect for Gonzo.

I agree with what you said about judges. They're too soft on players these days.

Plus I just want Murrays to kick some butt and prove all the doubters wrong.
Click to expand...

youre not alone in that. but if it was so clear in the replay, why did the olympic committe to which blake complained not agree with him and you and some others? :confused:

perhaps they decided that, even tho gonzo (who's the only one in the world who knows what he felt) said he didnt feel it, maybe the judges decided that it was not important enough a point that, had blake won it, it would have changed the outcome of the match?

anyway, murray did pretty well today, but gonzalez was simply on a higher plane (63, 36, 60, 64). lesson learned for murray, who's obviously improving on clay:)
____________

remind me again, LT: did you say murray's loss today would not prevent him from becoming #2 as long as he enters Queens?
 
Last edited:
Love Game said:
youre not alone in that. but if it was so clear in the replay, why did the olympic committe to which blake complained not agree with him and you and some others? :confused:

perhaps they decided that, even tho gonzo (who's the only one in the world who knows what he felt) said he didnt feel it, maybe the judges decided that it was not important enough a point that, had blake won it, it would have changed the outcome of the match?

anyway, murray did pretty well today, but gonzalez was simply on a higher plane (63, 36, 60, 64). lesson learned for murray, who's obviously improving on clay:)
____________

remind me again, LT: did you say murray's loss today would not prevent him from becoming #2 as long as he enters Queens?
Click to expand...
The IOC can't reverse the results of the match based on a bad call. Gonzales, though, will never be viewed the same. Overruling a bad line call is entirely a different matter. Whether the ball was in or out depends on the best guess of an official. But when you make an infraction like Gonzales did, you are honour bound to report it.
 
Love Game said:
But why? Blake filed a complaint, and the Olympic Committee reviewed the call and decided that Blake's complaint had no merit (or at least not enough to change the ruling of the umpire). I mean, the umpire was right there, wasn't s/he?

Players are players, and umpires/judges are umpires/judges. It's not a player's job to do the job of the umpire or judge.

I mean, how many times in their lives do players benefit from incorrect line calls? Do they correct the line call and give the point to their opponent?

Besides, that was just one point. It is not the reason Blake lost, is it? :confused:

p.s. I understand your idealistic viewpoint, and maybe youre the type of player to correct the line judge and give your opponent the point; and that is absolutely admirable of you; but very few people are so idealistic, considering that players also have their share of bad calls against them ... so i figure the favorable calls even out the unfavorable calls in the long run.

And that's the reason I give Gonzalez the benefit of the doubt. I'm not going to hold something against him that I am not absolutely sure of, and the one thing I know I am not absolutely sure of is the mind of another human being and what that mind/brain perceives. Only the person, himself, knows what he perceived.

I also am not going to hold him to a higher standard than i hold others to: namely, expecting them to give the point to the opponent when the umpire, line judge has given it to them.

OTOH, i understand about holding grudges against players: my grudges against ljubicic and fish are fading, but i still remember what i have against them (although, my grudges are already fading, so i hope yours can too :D)
Click to expand...

Wow! I can't believe Blake took it that far. That is bizarre!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Leublu tennis
  • Poll Poll
Can Roger regain #1 and when can he do it?
2
Replies
50
Views
4K
Leublu tennis
Leublu tennis
djokovicgonzalez2010
  • Poll Poll
Murray, Soderling, or Davydenko at #4?
Replies
15
Views
2K
Dreamer
Dreamer
FlashFlare11
2012 Roland Garros: Performance and Rankings Implications for the Top Four
Replies
17
Views
3K
FlashFlare11
FlashFlare11
P
Ranking situation fully & clearly explained
Replies
9
Views
2K
aceX
aceX
Roddick85
Post FO ranking...the battle for #2
Replies
17
Views
2K
Inanimate_object
Inanimate_object
Back
Top