If Wawrinka had won the 2014 US Open...?

Vegito

Hall of Fame
It´s hypothetical, but that could have happened. What could have been different for Djokovic and Wawrinka in their results for the rest of he season?

There would have been a discussion about who was the true number one?
 

NoleFam

G.O.A.T.
It would never have happened because Cilic would have defeated him given the form he was in. Hypothetically, to answer your question, I guess some would have said that he was the true #1 but Djokovic would still have ended the year #1 because he had a lead of 6000 points over him at the end of 2014.
 
Djokovic would have definitely still ended the year #1. I guess Wawrinka would have a chance at Player of the Year but LOL at the anti Nadal hypocritical-ness that would expose if it happened, given that if Nadal's year in 2013 with 2 majors to Novak's 1 was deemed not good enough to be named Player of Year over Djokovic, then no way should Wawrinka's year have been even close.
 

NoleFam

G.O.A.T.
Djokovic would have definitely still ended the year #1. I guess Wawrinka would have a chance at Player of the Year but LOL at the anti Nadal hypocritical-ness that would expose if it happened, given that if Nadal's year in 2013 with 2 majors to Novak's 1 was deemed not good enough to be named Player of Year over Djokovic, then no way should Wawrinka's year have been even close.
The Player of the Year is from the ITF so they go by Slam win record and Davis Cup. Djokovic took it from Nadal in 2013 because he had a 24-3 record and Nadal had a 14-1 record. He won 10 more matches than him so they gave it to Djokovic. Hypothetically, in 2014, Wawrinka would have had an 18-2 record and Djokovic would have had 22-3 record. He probably still would have gotten it. I think they should go by number of Slams but that's just the way they do it. Venus never won it even though she won 2 Slams in 2000 and 2001.
 
The Player of the Year is from the ITF so they go by Slam win record and Davis Cup. Djokovic took it from Nadal in 2013 because he had a 24-3 record and Nadal had a 14-1 record. He won 10 more matches than him so they gave it to Djokovic. Hypothetically, in 2014, Wawrinka would have had an 18-2 record and Djokovic would have had 22-3 record. He probably still would have gotten it. I think they should go by number of Slams but that's just the way they do it. Venus never won it even though she won 2 Slams in 2000 and 2001.
With all due respect I cant believe they follow an exact formula like you are saying as there are many winners who would not have won under that formula. If that were not the case I could go along with that no problem. I believe there was an anti Nadal faction of sorts at play to that particular decision (perhaps he failed a drug test or two they covered up for one of his silent bans that was rumored). It was one of the more ridiculous ones ever in the sport, although since Novak also had an excellent 2013 in his own right, just not as strong as Nadal's, I was happy he got some sort of additional recognition for it, even if in a somewhat ridiculous form.

If that happened to someone I actually liked rather than to Nadal who I cant stand, I probably would have been livid, so fortunately it was to Nadal, LOL! That along with that the ITF award isnt a big deal anymore in the sport like it was in the 70s and 80s.
 
1 Slam + 1 RU + WTF + 4 Masters + YE#1 ranking > 2 Slams + 1 Masters + YE#3(likely the highest ranking Wawrinka would've achieved even with 2 majors).
Wasnt Federer YE#2 that year? That would be funny, a guy with 2 majors ranked below a guy with none. That has happened on the WTA but I dont recall the last time it did in the ATP.
 

nachiket nolefam

Hall of Fame
With all due respect I cant believe they follow an exact formula like you are saying as there are many winners who would not have won under that formula. If that were not the case I could go along with that no problem. I believe there was an anti Nadal faction of sorts at play to that particular decision (perhaps he failed a drug test or two they covered up for one of his silent bans that was rumored). It was one of the more ridiculous ones ever in the sport, although since Novak also had an excellent 2013 in his own right, just not as strong as Nadal's, I was happy he got some sort of additional recognition for it, even if in a somewhat ridiculous form.

If that happened to someone I actually liked rather than to Nadal who I cant stand, I probably would have been livid, so fortunately it was to Nadal, LOL! That along with that the ITF award isnt a big deal anymore in the sport like it was in the 70s and 80s.
lol
 

every7

Hall of Fame
IF Wawrinka had won USO he would have been declared the better player that year of the two.

Reasons:
1. Won more majors than Djokovic
2. The only meetings between the pair in majors (2) were both won by Wawrinka (hypothetically he would've been beaten Djok in Semis in order to win USO)

Wawrinka would have been considered the "True" No. 1 for winning where it counts most, and beating Djokovic where it counts most. BUT the cumulative factors favour Djokovic, and he would rightly have been considered to have had a more consistent season, and would be considered the ATP computer's No. 1.
 

Djokovic2011

Bionic Poster
IF Wawrinka had won USO he would have been declared the better player that year of the two.

Reasons:
1. Won more majors than Djokovic
2. The only meetings between the pair in majors (2) were both won by Wawrinka (hypothetically he would've been beaten Djok in Semis in order to win USO)

Wawrinka would have been considered the "True" No. 1 for winning where it counts most, and beating Djokovic where it counts most. BUT the cumulative factors favour Djokovic, and he would rightly be considered to have had a more consistent season, and would be considered the ATP computer's No.1.
All of which would've made him the "true" number one to begin with.
 

Jaitock1991

Hall of Fame
Djokovic would have definitely still ended the year #1. I guess Wawrinka would have a chance at Player of the Year but LOL at the anti Nadal hypocritical-ness that would expose if it happened, given that if Nadal's year in 2013 with 2 majors to Novak's 1 was deemed not good enough to be named Player of Year over Djokovic, then no way should Wawrinka's year have been even close.
Do you think that Nadal should have been rewarded player of the year in 2013?
 

NoleFam

G.O.A.T.
With all due respect I cant believe they follow an exact formula like you are saying as there are many winners who would not have won under that formula. If that were not the case I could go along with that no problem. I believe there was an anti Nadal faction of sorts at play to that particular decision (perhaps he failed a drug test or two they covered up for one of his silent bans that was rumored). It was one of the more ridiculous ones ever in the sport, although since Novak also had an excellent 2013 in his own right, just not as strong as Nadal's, I was happy he got some sort of additional recognition for it, even if in a somewhat ridiculous form.

If that happened to someone I actually liked rather than to Nadal who I cant stand, I probably would have been livid, so fortunately it was to Nadal, LOL! That along with that the ITF award isnt a big deal anymore in the sport like it was in the 70s and 80s.
Personally, I think it's crazy to give it to someone with 1 Slam versus another player with 2 Slams so I don't really understand the ITF player of the year award. There have been a few times that I thought the player that won it wasn't the strongest choice. Maybe there was something going on behind the scenes that affected their decision.
 
Personally, I think it's crazy to give it to someone with 1 Slam versus another player with 2 Slams so I don't really understand the ITF player of the year award. There have been a few times that I thought the player that won it wasn't the strongest choice. Maybe there was something going on behind the scenes that affected their decision.
Yeah and Nadal also won the most Masters titles and most tournaments of anyone. Usually one only overrides 1 slam vs 2 for something really extreme, not for a guy who also won more Masters, tournaments, and ended the year #1, LOL! I understand the aspects of Nadal's year that were worse, a DNP and 1st round loss in 2 slams, and Novak's WTF title, but even so this really stood out. I was happy for Novak getting some recognition for his very good year all the same, even if it was a baffling choice.

I agree there was something likely behind the scenes, and I wouldnt be surprised if it was annoyance at one of Nadal's silent bans or something like that.

Do you think that Nadal should have been rewarded player of the year in 2013?
Definitely, and I cant stand Nadal. He basically was anyway, by everyone but the ITF.
 

NoleFam

G.O.A.T.
Yeah and Nadal also won the most Masters titles and most tournaments of anyone. Usually one only overrides 1 slam vs 2 for something really extreme, not for a guy who also won more Masters, tournaments, and ended the year #1, LOL! I understand the aspects of Nadal's year that were worse, a DNP and 1st round loss in 2 slams, and Novak's WTF title, but even so this really stood out. I was happy for Novak getting some recognition for his very good year all the same, even if it was a baffling choice.

I agree there was something likely behind the scenes, and I wouldnt be surprised if it was annoyance at one of Nadal's silent bans or something like that.



Definitely, and I cant stand Nadal. He basically was anyway, by everyone but the ITF.
Yea and I've disagreed with their decisions a few times. Like Venus won Wimbledon, US Open, the Olympics and 6 titles overall in 2000 but they gave it to Hingis who won no Slams and 9 titles. Venus had an 18-1 record in Slams and Hingis had a 20-4 record. So they have a history of this and it's kind of confusing.
 
Yea and I've disagreed with their decisions a few times. Like Venus won Wimbledon, US Open and the Olympics and 6 titles overall in 2000 but they gave it to Hingis who won no Slams and 9 titles. Venus had an 18-1 record in Slams and Hingis had a 20-4 record. So they have a history of this and it's kind of confusing.
They also gave it to Capriati in 2001 with her 3 titles and 2 slams vs Venus who won the 2 biggest events (Wimbledon and U.S Open) and 6 tournaments, and was 3-0 vs Capriati for the year. In fact everyone gave it to Capriati, and she even won Athlete of the Year (lol) despite not ending the year officialy #1 (Davenport did) and having a weaker year than Venus. I think people were swept up in the fairytale comeback story.
 

NoleFam

G.O.A.T.
They also gave it to Capriati in 2001 with her 3 titles and 2 slams vs Venus who won the 2 biggest events (Wimbledon and U.S Open) and 6 tournaments, and was 3-0 vs Capriati for the year. In fact everyone gave it to Capriati, and she even won Athlete of the Year (lol) despite not ending the year officialy #1 (Davenport did) and having a weaker year than Venus. I think people were swept up in the fairytale comeback story.
Yea that is true. At least then they could say well she also won 2 Slams so it was a hard decision. I heard that they gave it to Capriati because she went to the SF of all the Slams and won 2. But giving it to Hingis in 2000? No way.
 
Yea that is true. At least then they could say well she also won 2 Slams so it was a hard decision. I heard that they gave it to Capriati because she went to the SF of all the Slams and won 2. But giving it to Hingis in 2000? No way.
Giving it to Hingis in 2000 was hilarious. Even Davenport would have been a better choice.

Also giving it to Myskina in 2004. WTF!?!!? Henin, Sharapova, Davenport, Mauresmo, Kuznetsova, Dementieva, Serena, would have all made better choices.
 

NoleFam

G.O.A.T.
Giving it to Hingis in 2000 was hilarious. Even Davenport would have been a better choice.

Also giving it to Myskina in 2004. WTF!?!!? Henin, Sharapova, Davenport, Mauresmo, Kuznetsova, Dementieva, Serena, would have all made better choices.
Totally agree. They gave it to Myskina in 2004? Hahahaha. I learn something new everyday. What a joke.
 
Totally agree. They gave it to Myskina in 2004? Hahahaha. I learn something new everyday. What a joke.
That was a crazy year for womens tennis in that like 11 women could have conceivably won 2 slams or more, but nobody stepped forward to really seperate themselves. Mauresmo and Davenport did consistently well in slams and won lots of tournaments, but neither reached a slam final. Dementieva was the only one to reach 2 slam finals. Serena did well in all the big events, and reached the Wimbledon and WTF final, won Miami, but didnt win a major. Henin won the Australian, Olympics, 5 tournaments, but didnt play a whole year. Sharapova won Wimbledon and the YEC but had early losses at the Australian and U.S Opens. Kuznetsova and Myskina each won a major.

Still by no possible avenue did Myskina have the best year. Even if you limit it those who won a major she probably had the weakest year of the 4.
 

NoleFam

G.O.A.T.
That was a crazy year for womens tennis in that like 11 women could have conceivably won 2 slams or more, but nobody stepped forward to really seperate themselves. Mauresmo and Davenport did consistently well in slams and won lots of tournaments, but neither reached a slam final. Dementieva was the only one to reach 2 slam finals. Serena did well in all the big events, and reached the Wimbledon and WTF final, won Miami, but didnt win a major. Henin won the Australian, Olympics, 5 tournaments, but didnt play a whole year. Sharapova won Wimbledon and the YEC but had early losses at the Australian and U.S Opens. Kuznetsova and Myskina each won a major.

Still by no possible avenue did Myskina have the best year. Even if you limit it those who won a major she probably had the weakest year of the 4.
Yes hers was definitely the weakest. There is no way she should have been given it. In all honesty, Henin or Sharapova probably should have gotten it. I'm still shocked that she actually won the French Open that year.
 

every7

Hall of Fame
All of which would've made him the "true" number one to begin with.
If you want to rely on a numerical algorythm that they give to a computer that can't reason with logic and assessment, then yes Djokovic is the ATP computer No. 1 and also your true number one.
 
Top