Novak Wins U.S. Open, but Federer finishes #1 for Year

[McEnroeisanartist]

If Federer loses to Djokovic in the U.S. Open final, and Djokovic doesn't win another title the rest of the year, and Federer wins another Masters Series tournament and ATP World Tour finals, will people think Federer is an unworthy year end #1? Like, Connors in 77 and 78, McEnroe in 82, and Lendl in 89.

In the scenario above, Djokovic would have gone W, F, SF, W in Grand Slams, Federer would have gone SF, SF, W, F in Grand Slams.

Federer will have won 8 tournaments, including a grand slam, ATP World Tour Finals, and 4 Master Series.

Djokovic will have won 4 tournaments, including 2 grand slams, and 2 Masters Series.

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

I would consider the player who has won the 2 majors to be the number one in my eyes -- the real number one, if you will.

 

[tennis_pro]

If Federer didn't win a major this year and finished no 1, I would consider Djokovic to be the "real" no 1 player in the world. But if Novak wins the US and Fed does another indoor sweep, Fed would be the man (the most important tournament in the world won, 4 masters, WTF, 9-10 titles total).

 

[tennis_pro]

If Federer loses to Djokovic in the U.S. Open final, and Djokovic doesn't win another title the rest of the year, and Federer wins another Masters Series tournament and ATP World Tour finals, will people think Federer is an unworthy year end #1? Like, Connors in 77 and 78, McEnroe in 82, and Lendl in 89.

In the scenario above, Djokovic would have gone W, F, SF, W in Grand Slams, Federer would have gone SF, SF, W, F in Grand Slams.

Federer will have won 8 tournaments, including a grand slam, ATP World Tour Finals, and 4 Master Series.

Djokovic will have won 4 tournaments, including 2 grand slams, and 2 Masters Series.

Connors ending 1977 at no 1 was an outrage. Vilas won 2 majors smacking Connors in the US final (and reached another final), won 16 titles total (a record) and yet finished second. Same with Mc in 1982 - no majors won yet ranked above Connors who won Wimbledon and the US that year.

1978 and 1989 are debatable cause Connors/Lendl won 1 of the 4 majors that year. If you fail to win a major in a season you don't deserve to be ranked 1st, period.

 

[Ellipses]

Ireland wins the Quidditch World Cup - but Viktor Krum gets the snitch.

(I would consider Federer to be number IF he sweeps the indoors again, or comes close).

 

[joeri888]

If the best player was the one with the most majors, we wouldn't need a ranking system.

 

[psYcon]

Anyone remember Marcelo Rios? The guy got to #1 without winning a single major. So there.

 

[NadalAgassi]

A player with 2 slams is always the real #1 over a player with 1 barring a major extreme difference of sorts. One rare time I can think this wasnt the case was Graf being #1 over Navratilova in 87 when Graf won 12 tournaments and lost only 2 matches, and Martina won only 4 of 12 tournaments entered. Yet even that year many still argue Martina was the real #1 of that year.

In all other cases Becker vs Lendl in 89, Borg vs Connors in 78, Agassi vs Sampras in 95 (even had Agassi ended #1 as looked like he was still going to after U.S Open), Mauresmo vs Henin in 2006, the real #1 was considered the one with 2 majors vs one with 1.

 

[jean pierre]

I would consider the player who has won the 2 majors to be the number one in my eyes -- the real number one, if you will.

Yes, of course. That's why Vilas was the real n°1 in 1977.

 

[NadalAgassi]

Yes, of course. That's why Vilas was the real n°1 in 1977.

Oh I forgot, that was the other exception.

 

[TMF]

If Federer didn't win a major this year and finished no 1, I would consider Djokovic to be the "real" no 1 player in the world. But if Novak wins the US and Fed does another indoor sweep, Fed would be the man (the most important tournament in the world won, 4 masters, WTF, 9-10 titles total).

If Nole won the USO and Fed dominate the indoor season like last year, I agree Fed deserve #1 if he accumulated more points. Tennis doesn't end after the USO, and the WTF is huge.

 

[joeri888]

It's not ONLY about Slams guys. A Slam is 1 match, sometimes 2 that decide it. Can really go by quickly. Over the whole season, I think the ranking system is very fair. I consider Federer to be the best player over the last 12 months, even though Djokovic won 2 majors and Fed just 1 at the moment. Federer just performed better overall. you need to win a lot to compensate for the 2000 points the other wins by winning a major. I think winning to MS titles is that much. Now if 1 player clearly dominates all Slams and has like 3 slams to 1, or 2 to zero, it's different, but in general: the player with the most points is the real no. 1

 

[BauerAlmeida]

Ireland wins the Quidditch World Cup - but Viktor Krum gets the snitch.

:lol::lol::lol::lol:

If Nole won the USO and Fed dominate the indoor season like last year, I agree Fed deserve #1 if he accumulated more points. Tennis doesn't end after the USO, and the WTF is huge.

This. If Fed has more points wining the WTF he diserves the 1 despite having one major. However if Djokovic has 2 slams and Federer 1 without the WTF I would consider Nole the "real" 1.

 

[timnz]

That is the reason that the point system is wrong

I would consider the player who has won the 2 majors to be the number one in my eyes -- the real number one, if you will.

Its very clear that slams should be at least 2.5 or 3 times a masters 1000 instead of the current 2 times. When people say the rankings have got it 'wrong', what do they mean? They mean that the slams aren't given sufficient weight.

 

[Prisoner of Birth]

I think the points system is fair, although I wouldn't be averse to having 2500 points for the Grand Slams. As long as a player has one Grand Slam for the year, even if someone else has the rest of them, I'd say he's worthy of year-end #1 if he has the most ATP points. But I do think the Olympics should be worth atleast a 1000 points for the winner (but no more than 1500). 750 is too low, considering even the Masters are worth a 1000 points.

 

[Joss]

There's 2 types of tennis fans. Those who see tennis as 4 grand slams and those who see tennis as a grueling 11 month calendar. The ranking system is deemed unfit in the eyes of those who only see the grand slams as "the true tennis test". The ranking may not be perfect but it does reflect a near accurate picture of who's been doing well for the last 12 months (not just 2012).

It also seems that the WTF is overlooked by a lot of the "grand slam fans". To win a grand slam you only need to beat a top 10 once or twice to win it all (unless the winner is outside the top 20). With the WTF, you face only the top 8 which is quite a feat to win.

 

[West Coast Ace]

Splitting hairs. As others mentioned, this situation is nothing like Rios or Woz on Betty Tour being fake #1's...

 

[mellowyellow]

I think the points system is fair, although I wouldn't be averse to having 2500 points for the Grand Slams. As long as a player has one Grand Slam for the year, even if someone else has the rest of them, I'd say he's worthy of year-end #1 if he has the most ATP points. But I do think the Olympics should be worth atleast a 1000 points for the winner (but no more than 1500). 750 is too low, considering even the Masters are worth a 1000 points.

This is too unfair for players ranked
very high, yet do not qualify for the once in four years tournament. That is why it is less than a Masters.

 

[Prisoner of Birth]

This is too unfair for players ranked
very high, yet do not qualify for the once in four years tournament. That is why it is less than a Masters.

That's true. But one can't deny that the Olympic Gold Medal for Tennis is more prestigious than just about any Masters title. Except for maybe "The Real Slam" :lol:

 

[Djokodal Fan]

Novak is not close to winning USO. It has Federer's name written all over on the silverware this year.

As much as I would like Novak to win it, guess he is done! Guess last year was just an exception!

 

[Hawkeye7]

Novak is not close to winning USO. It has Federer's name written all over on the silverware this year.

As much as I would like Novak to win it, guess he is done! Guess last year was just an exception!

Are you trying to anti-jinx him? lol

 

[Jackuar]

I would [/I]consider Nole the "real" 1.

Why should you - the points themselves will take care of that in this case....

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

Just because the points say something is so doesn't mean you need to believe them or follow them religiously. Those 2 Slams are going to look a lot better than 1.

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

Novak is not close to winning USO. It has Federer's name written all over on the silverware this year.

As much as I would like Novak to win it, guess he is done! Guess last year was just an exception!

Just wait for the draw.

 

[Jackuar]

Its very clear that slams should be at least 2.5 or 3 times a masters 1000 instead of the current 2 times. When people say the rankings have got it 'wrong', what do they mean? They mean that the slams aren't given sufficient weight.

Weighed more than 2 times the MS titles will skew the players' mentality towards the tour, rankings, strategies and affect tennis is other parts of the world. Isn't that the reason why the tour was mandated with a fixed no of GS, MS, 500/250 appearances?

Anyway, other than the history and being a 5-setter, what way is a MS title lesser than a GS? they both have the same depth of field...

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

Weighed more than 2 times the MS titles will skew the players' mentality towards the tour, rankings, strategies and affect tennis is other parts of the world. Isn't that the reason why the tour was mandated with a fixed no of GS, MS, 500/250 appearances?

Anyway, other than the history and being a 5-setter, what way is a MS title lesser than a GS? they both have the same depth of field...

Frankly, I'm not interested in arguments that tend to lay down cold hard rules instead of guidelines, as if something must be so if the numbers state as such. An MS title is lesser than a GS because you play less matches and they are only best of 3, they also carry way less prestige and overall pressure. WTF may be as difficult to win as a Slam, if not harder. Whilst it is the biggest non Slam event, it still doesn't quite carry the weight and prestige of a major, but in its own right it could be considered to be a major tournament, and certainly an absolutely elite and top level tournament.