Roger Federer's great (and perhaps last) chance to eclipse Pete Sampras by finishing YE#1
- Thread starter Zhilady
- Start date
I think it's safe to say neither Nadal or Djokovic are a threat for YE#1 this year...
Zhilady
Professional
If they're not in the top 10 post-French Open, that's when I might rule them out.
Zhilady
Professional
ATP Live Race:
1. Federer - 3100
2. Del Potro - 1760
3. Cilic - 1380
9. Dimitrov - 760
31. Nadal - 360
76. Djokovic - 190
With the win at Indian Wells, Del Potro has emerged as a potential contender, but he'd need to do really well to contend at the end of the year. Cilic bombed out early and is seeming less of a threat than he did at the start of the tournament. But, perhaps most importantly, Federer adds 600 points to his lead over Nadal, which is now up to 2740 points. Quite sizable, and Federer can only add to it if he plays Miami.
1. Federer - 3100
2. Del Potro - 1760
3. Cilic - 1380
9. Dimitrov - 760
31. Nadal - 360
76. Djokovic - 190
With the win at Indian Wells, Del Potro has emerged as a potential contender, but he'd need to do really well to contend at the end of the year. Cilic bombed out early and is seeming less of a threat than he did at the start of the tournament. But, perhaps most importantly, Federer adds 600 points to his lead over Nadal, which is now up to 2740 points. Quite sizable, and Federer can only add to it if he plays Miami.
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
Hard to believe that this time 2 years ago Del Potro was ranked about 1K in the world. His comeback is unbelievable, arguably his best one yet all things considered.
helterskelter
G.O.A.T.
@Chanwan is definitely right that Federer's chances of finishing year-end #1 were a lot higher heading into the Montreal final last year than they are now or were prior to Indian Wells (when the discussion took place). Why?
1. More than half of the season was complete by then; it's barely started now. That means that it was almost mathematically certain that nobody other than Nadal could take over from him as year-end #1. Now, if we rule out everyone but Nadal, we are doing so in large part on the basis of past performance. But given that Federer is more than 36 and a half, there is at any moment a fairly significant chance that he could get injured or lose form dramatically. Given that, we have no good reason to believe that Nadal is the only one who could challenge him. Federer at his best would be too good over a season for Cilic or Del Potro. Federer at 36/37 might not be.
2. There's still time for Djokovic to recover his form. In 2017 prior to Montreal, there wasn't. And Djokovic on-form can certainly challenge the Federer of 2018 even if Federer maintains his form.
3. The rankings are mostly decided on the basis of 14 events (four Slams, one year-end event, nine Masters 1000). Yes, the 500s and 250s make a difference, but the bulk of the rankings are decided by those 14. At the time of the Montreal final last year, Nadal had already got a points tally for the first nine of those 14 events (three Slams and six MS 1000 events), while four of the remaining five were ones at which he doesn't usually excel (the US Open being the exception) and three were ones that he'd never won (Cincinnati being the one he had). True, many of the events between now and Canada are ones in which Nadal did well last year, but he is likely to do well in them again. And in 2017, it was 100% certain that Nadal would not do especially well at Wimbledon or Montreal. Now, there is at least a chance that he will do well in them in 2018. And there is also a chance that Federer will do worse than winning Wimbledon and making the Montreal final (and that he won't win Miami or Halle).
Basically, what changed in Montreal was not that Federer lost to Zverev but that he picked up an injury that meant he had to miss Cincinnati, couldn't challenge for the #2 seeding at the US Open, and wasn't fully fit at that event.
1. More than half of the season was complete by then; it's barely started now. That means that it was almost mathematically certain that nobody other than Nadal could take over from him as year-end #1. Now, if we rule out everyone but Nadal, we are doing so in large part on the basis of past performance. But given that Federer is more than 36 and a half, there is at any moment a fairly significant chance that he could get injured or lose form dramatically. Given that, we have no good reason to believe that Nadal is the only one who could challenge him. Federer at his best would be too good over a season for Cilic or Del Potro. Federer at 36/37 might not be.
2. There's still time for Djokovic to recover his form. In 2017 prior to Montreal, there wasn't. And Djokovic on-form can certainly challenge the Federer of 2018 even if Federer maintains his form.
3. The rankings are mostly decided on the basis of 14 events (four Slams, one year-end event, nine Masters 1000). Yes, the 500s and 250s make a difference, but the bulk of the rankings are decided by those 14. At the time of the Montreal final last year, Nadal had already got a points tally for the first nine of those 14 events (three Slams and six MS 1000 events), while four of the remaining five were ones at which he doesn't usually excel (the US Open being the exception) and three were ones that he'd never won (Cincinnati being the one he had). True, many of the events between now and Canada are ones in which Nadal did well last year, but he is likely to do well in them again. And in 2017, it was 100% certain that Nadal would not do especially well at Wimbledon or Montreal. Now, there is at least a chance that he will do well in them in 2018. And there is also a chance that Federer will do worse than winning Wimbledon and making the Montreal final (and that he won't win Miami or Halle).
Basically, what changed in Montreal was not that Federer lost to Zverev but that he picked up an injury that meant he had to miss Cincinnati, couldn't challenge for the #2 seeding at the US Open, and wasn't fully fit at that event.
Chanwan
G.O.A.T.
Exactly what I've been trying to argue though spelling out 3 like you do makes it an even better argument. Cheers
Hughjarse
New User
So Delpo reached the semi’s at Miami (better than I thought he’d do).
No Nadal, and then Cilic and Dimi knocked out earlier.
So Fed must be fav for YE#1.
Only a stellar clay court season from Nadal can prevent that now.
As long as Fed is fit to play Halle/Wimbledon/Cinci/US/Toronto/Shanghai/WTF he should be fine.
Obviously you can add in/take out/switch one or two of those events.
No Nadal, and then Cilic and Dimi knocked out earlier.
So Fed must be fav for YE#1.
Only a stellar clay court season from Nadal can prevent that now.
As long as Fed is fit to play Halle/Wimbledon/Cinci/US/Toronto/Shanghai/WTF he should be fine.
Obviously you can add in/take out/switch one or two of those events.
chjtennis
G.O.A.T.
I think Federer has 50% chance of doing it, which is pretty high. The key will be Wimbledon and USO. He needs to win one or go deep in both, like a F and a SF. More likely, however, he'll need a slam title to achieve 6th YE#1. He needs some luck but let's see how he goes. Winning another YEC and break the record would also be awesome.
Zhilady
Professional
I've already addressed this. A loss of form or injury in 2017 meant that Nadal would finish YE#1, because he was leading the race over Federer at every point after the claycourt season and had already shown himself to be the second best hardcourt player of the year. A loss of form or injury in 2018 still leaves a remote chance of Federer finishing YE#1 because (1) Federer has a significant lead over everyone else already (2) Nadal and Djokovic look to be in bad shape already, with Djokovic looking even worse than he did last year and Nadal looking significantly worse (3) His other biggest rivals are Del Potro and Cilic, and with Del Potro being as likely to get injured as Federer is and Cilic never even being in the top 2 yet.
Djokovic is down at #84 in the race and Federer has almost 3000 points on him. It's possible he can challenge Federer, but do you really believe he will?
That is precisely the point I was making. Federer missed 8 of the 14 events last year while Nadal played all 14. It was always going to be an uphill battle for Federer considering that. This year, that looks a little different. Nadal has already missed 2 of them, which makes things easier for Federer.
Also, another major difference between last year and this year is that Nadal had already proved himself to be the second best hardcourt player of 2017. This year, he's perhaps not even in the top 10 so far. He looked more ominous heading into the late hardcourt season last year than he does now.
I agree that I would've given Federer a strong chance last year. I just give him a better chance this year, because he has a bigger lead over Nadal than he ever did last year and because Nadal and Djokovic are looking worse than they did last year.
tennisaddict
Bionic Poster
With Djoko at crossroads and Nadal can do jack**t outside of clay any longer unless gifted with his clown USO draw, it is Fed’s to lose this year
Zhilady
Professional
ATP Live Race:
1. Federer - 3110
2. Del Potro - 2120
3. Cilic - 1470
9. Dimitrov - 805
39. Nadal - 360
84. Djokovic - 200
If Djokovic can't show something on clay, we can as good as rule him out along with Andy Murray. If Zverev wins Miami, me might have to start considering him a contender, but I'll keep him off the list for now.
1. Federer - 3110
2. Del Potro - 2120
3. Cilic - 1470
9. Dimitrov - 805
39. Nadal - 360
84. Djokovic - 200
If Djokovic can't show something on clay, we can as good as rule him out along with Andy Murray. If Zverev wins Miami, me might have to start considering him a contender, but I'll keep him off the list for now.
George Turner
Hall of Fame
Doubt Fedr is that bothered about this, even though TW posters hype it up as having some great importance.
If he has the opportunity to go for it he will, like he took the opportunity to become the oldest world number one ever. If not, s*** happens.
Winning Wimbledon again is the big goal now.
If he has the opportunity to go for it he will, like he took the opportunity to become the oldest world number one ever. If not, s*** happens.
Winning Wimbledon again is the big goal now.
Gary Duane
G.O.A.T.
I like Fed's chances if Nadal has a weak year on clay. But I'd pick Nadal as most likely if he has another strong clay season and then does relatively well afterward. Especially if he wins RG, and Fed does not either win or at least get to a final of Wimbledon.
Usually the guy who wins the most slams is #1, which is why last year was so close.
Usually the guy who wins the most slams is #1, which is why last year was so close.
Gary Duane
G.O.A.T.
If Nadal wins RG and does well at the other clay events, it's going to be a battle again for Fedal.
Sudacafan
Bionic Poster
I find very unlikely that Federer matches his 2017 ATP ranking points.
As for Nadal, I find unlikely he can match his own 2017 points.
Overall, I see more unlikeliness in Federer matching his own 2017 tally than Nadal.
Likeliness of a player reaching YE#1 other than Fedal is possible but not probable.
As for Nadal, I find unlikely he can match his own 2017 points.
Overall, I see more unlikeliness in Federer matching his own 2017 tally than Nadal.
Likeliness of a player reaching YE#1 other than Fedal is possible but not probable.
Hughjarse
New User
I don’t think Fed#20 will have to win as many points as last year to be in the hunt for YE#1.
Another good result for him today with Isner beating Zverev.
I just can’t see Rafa winning all around him on clay, that injury won’t just disappear.
Fed has already defended Aus, won in Rotterdam and got to IW final.
A good run at Wimbledon and US and he should be there.
This year could see some new faces featuring at the WTF if Cilic/Dimi/Thiem/Delpo/Zverev continue their erratic form.
Djoko and Murray will take a while to get back in the groove.
*Delpo has been v good but let’s see how he handles a long season.
Another good result for him today with Isner beating Zverev.
I just can’t see Rafa winning all around him on clay, that injury won’t just disappear.
Fed has already defended Aus, won in Rotterdam and got to IW final.
A good run at Wimbledon and US and he should be there.
This year could see some new faces featuring at the WTF if Cilic/Dimi/Thiem/Delpo/Zverev continue their erratic form.
Djoko and Murray will take a while to get back in the groove.
*Delpo has been v good but let’s see how he handles a long season.
AlexanderTheGreat08
Hall of Fame
If Nadal goes undefeated on the Clay or at least defends the 4680 , Also winning Queens and QF at W with winning Cincy or Montreal , Also At least a SF at the USO , He’s not defending points at the WTF
Im(moral) Winner
G.O.A.T.
Him winning Queens after repeating or bettering his last clay season
In the ATP Rankings page where it shows Former 1s , Federer is @ #1 & Sampras is @ #2 . With Sampras @ 6 YE#1 to Federer's 5 YE #1. So i take it that the ATP values # of Weeks @ #1 over # of Year End #1s??
Shouldn't this end the debate on an official ground considering the governing body has clearly stated what it deems to be the most valuable ranking stat according to the ATP's ranking of rankings?
Whether us fans all agree upon the official standings is another matter entirely ...
Shouldn't this end the debate on an official ground considering the governing body has clearly stated what it deems to be the most valuable ranking stat according to the ATP's ranking of rankings?
Whether us fans all agree upon the official standings is another matter entirely ...
Especially as not all YE#1 are equal. Sampras 1998 worse than Fed’s 2012 or 2017 for example. Or Djokovic 2013.In the ATP Rankings page where it shows Former 1s , Federer is @ #1 & Sampras is @ #2 . With Sampras @ 6 YE#1 to Federer's 5 YE #1. So i take it that the ATP values # of Weeks @ #1 over # of Year End #1s??
Shouldn't this end the debate on an official ground considering the governing body has clearly stated what it deems to be the most valuable ranking stat according to the ATP's ranking of rankings?
Whether us fans all agree upon the official standings is another matter entirely ...
La Vigésima
Rookie
In the ATP Rankings page where it shows Former 1s , Federer is @ #1 & Sampras is @ #2 . With Sampras @ 6 YE#1 to Federer's 5 YE #1. So i take it that the ATP values # of Weeks @ #1 over # of Year End #1s??
Shouldn't this end the debate on an official ground considering the governing body has clearly stated what it deems to be the most valuable ranking stat according to the ATP's ranking of rankings?
Whether us fans all agree upon the official standings is another matter entirely ...
Shouldn’t middle school-level logic already answer this question? What on earth could possibly make year-end No. 1 so special in a rolling 52-week ranking system?
You seem to have missed the countless threads & how most here support YE1 over a 'random week in the year @ #1' . 'YE#1 is talked about more & has a trophy' etc ...
Yet whenever i read articles on ATP , quite a lot of them always mention rankings & what the top seeds have awaiting them in the draws. Or how about when so many of of the top guys mention about hitting world #1 (@ any point throughout the year) right after their goal of winning more slams?
Or when commentators mention all of the math if a #1 were to drop their ranking @ any tournament or pretty much any of the top 10 if they were to move up or drop in the rankings throughout most tournaments, these things are quite often mentioned by the more reputable commentators , ie Mr Koenig .
So this notion of the YE#1 being talked about more than the rolling 52 week ranking is nonsense. The race does get mentioned from time to time, but what does that matter when the Rankings Race is purely setup for a useless exho' anyway?
Even @ slams the presenters will often cite the ranking of the bigger players (not always) when they come out to play in the slams & even in the smaller events also , but how often do you hear them mention '& here comes last years Year End #1' ??
Plus the 52 week ranking has a part to play in the week to week tournaments that the top players play. It makes draws easier or harder depending on your ranking , so it actually means a lot to have a higher ranking on top of the actual prestige . Meaning it serves an actual mechanical purpose on the tour.
Whereas what does a Year End #1 Trophy do for any top player? it doesn't serve much of a purpose does it? It's a trophy for being a calendar year #1? When the entirety of the tennis rankings revolves on a rolling 52 week ranking that comes into play every week of the season? It seems like a thin trophy
in a sport that is inundated with enough tournament trophies & various sportsmanship awards as it is.
Edit. Just to further add to my point in the values of both Weeks @ #1 vs YE#1 ...
Does anyone even care about anyone that is YE#2 & the rest? The Top-10 , & all of the other metrics are always cited . E.g , Top 10 wins , Top-5 , Top-3 etc which adds more depth to Weeks @ #1 by virtue of all of the other competitors that are within a certain ranking range of the World #1 constantly being mentioned (moving up or down) hence elevating the value & the importance of reaching & striving to hold all those precious Weeks @ #1.
It's safe to say that most here are aware of roughly who is currently in the Top-10 of the 52 week ranking throughout any random point of the year. Could we say the same thing about the previous years Years End Top-10?
P.s ... Fun Fact , did you know that Pete Sampras' previous record of 286 Weeks @ #1 is exactly 5.5 years worth of Weeks @ #1?
P.ss ... Federer is just 4 weeks shy of hitting 6 years worth of Weeks @ #1 , currently sitting idle on 308 .
Last edited:
According to Wiki , Federer is 2nd on the list of ATP 250 Mickey Mouse Tournaments. I pity the man ...
250 series tournaments
This is the class of tournaments in which the winner earns 250 ranking points. This format began in 2009, so these records include the equivalent former classes called the ATP World Series (1990–99) and ATP International Series (2000–08).
1.
Thomas Muster 262.
Roger Federer 24P.s Rafa & Fed are in a GOAT race for the most ATP 500 wins. With Fed the first to the magical #20 mark earlier this year in Rotterdam.Rafa is looking @ Barcelona whilst salivating @ the thought of tying Fed up for #1 during the upcoming clay court swing.
1.
Roger Federer 202.
Rafael Nadal 19
Last edited:
Zhilady
Professional
Could you give me the link to this page? Or at least the screenshot where they have Federer ranked over Sampras?In the ATP Rankings page where it shows Former 1s , Federer is @ #1 & Sampras is @ #2 . With Sampras @ 6 YE#1 to Federer's 5 YE #1. So i take it that the ATP values # of Weeks @ #1 over # of Year End #1s??
Shouldn't this end the debate on an official ground considering the governing body has clearly stated what it deems to be the most valuable ranking stat according to the ATP's ranking of rankings?
Whether us fans all agree upon the official standings is another matter entirely ...
Sport
G.O.A.T.
Ned? Fraudererx is also a good amount of points behind where he was last year.
I still think Federer will probably finish as #1.
P. S.: Sorry for using the term "Fraudererx", but it is exactly as disrespectful as using the label "Ned" for Nadal.
Deon Sanders
Legend
The greatest tennis player of all time is less behind where he was last year than Ned up to this point
Ned still has to defend his points
Ned is as they say dead. 36th in the race. YIKES
La Vigésima
Rookie
Oh, believe me, I haven't missed them. I'm just perpetually baffled that people with even a high school education could think that year-end No. 1 is somehow on a completely different plane of achievement from any other week at No. 1 in a sport with a rolling 52-week ranking system.
Zhilady
Professional
To be fair, it also baffles me that people even value ranking achievements so greatly. I realize that sounds rich coming from the creator of this thread, but I only care about ranking achievements because other people care about them.
titoelcolombiano
Legend
Isner will not drop a set for the rest of his career. Lock him in for the next 8 slams before he retires.
Zhilady
Professional
Well, that has “Total Weeks At No. 1” in the dropdown bar selected, so that’s why Federer would be at the top. Pick Year End No. 1 and Sampras tops it.
No , it is the standard layout of the Former #1s page with all 3 metrics in there. If you select each metric individually , yes it shows who's on top of each individual metric ' Total Weeks , Total Consecutive Weeks & YE#1'.
But the standard page with all 3 metrics it goes by Total Weeks first. Hinting towards that Total Weeks @ #1 is the main metric. The fact that you have to click on the other 2 metrics to see who's ahead in the list shows that ATP goes by Total Weeks @ #1 as the primary metric to use.
Edit.
Think of how Wiki has it's records. It goes by wins , Finals , Semi-Finals etc. Someone may be higher on one of the lower lists , but there is a reason as to why the lists go in that order of what is most important. The only difference there is , it is universally known that winning is better then being a Runner-Up. As opposed to Weeks @ #1 vs other Ranking metrics where it is a little murky because those stats are not necessarily as important.
I have also checked on Wiki's main ATP Rankings Page & there it has Total Weeks @ #1 first , followed by Total Consecutive Weeks (directly beside it) then beneath it there is Year End #1 Rankings. Even though Wiki isn't official , almost everything is setup properly & checks out. Most of the records there are correct & listed in the correct orders of importance IE Slams then the rest.
Last edited:
BlackSilver
Semi-Pro
At first I was thinking Nadal's chances were slim, because I find very unlikely that he will defend US Open or possibly even go deep in there. But them I remembered that I do not remember what he did in the summer hard court MS last year. Probably has enough room to make up for not defending most of his points at the US open.
So yes, I think it is to soon to say something. If Nadal fails in the clay season or Federer in the grass one, them the other became a huge favorite.
So yes, I think it is to soon to say something. If Nadal fails in the clay season or Federer in the grass one, them the other became a huge favorite.
D
Deleted member 77403
Guest
This is going to be a difficult one for Nadal, since even though Federer lost a couple of points post Miami this year compared to last, Nadal has lost out on a huge amount of points. The difference between them last year was very small, it was only until Paris that Nadal managed to seal the deal, and that too because Federer decided to skip Paris in favor of a shot at WTF. In other words, Federer, tired as he maybe, gave up the YE1 when he was still in the fight, to focus on winning in London. Nadal has to at least equal what he did on the clay, if wants to stand any chance, if he slips up and loses early in even the masters, his chances of getting the year end number one goes up in smoke. That is 5000 points, he really needs 4K plus, and the lead heading into the grass at all costs. Losses in MC, Barcelona, Madrid or Rome, and his chase is effectively over...chasing slam count still on if he wins RG, but that is not what we are talking about in this thread. If Federer wins W, the race is over in my eyes, Federer will be gaining more points post W than Nadal, no way Nadal gets him then.
Paul Harman
Semi-Pro
Fed already eclipsed Pete. If Fed is Jupiter and Pete is Saturn, this thread is about Ganymede eclipsing Hyperion.
Zhilady
Professional
I think Federer’s chances are more or less the same as they were pre-Indian Wells. He didn’t do as well as I expected him to do in Indian Wells and Miami (he was literally a point away from getting the 1000 points I expected him to) but the good news for him is that nobody really gained on him too much. I considered Djokovic one of his 3 biggest threats and he’s fallen even more behind now and things aren’t looking good for him going forward. Cilic hasn’t made any ground on Federer. Del Potro has, but he says he will skip a large part of the claycourt season, so I don’t know how big of a threat he will be. Perhaps the biggest added negative I see is Federer confirming that he will completely skip clay. But that was almost expected, anyway, so it doesn’t make a huge difference.
I think I still believe Federer has as good a chance now as he’s ever had to get that 6th YE#1. Monte Carlo will probably tell a lot of the tale now.
Backspin1183
Talk Tennis Guru
One of Ned/Rogue to be year end #1 again.
Zhilady
Professional
With Federer leading by 2750 points, I think all Nadal needs is 3000 points during the claycourt season to remain in contention. After that point, a Federer injury or a Federer loss of form could hand him the YE#1 if he does reasonably well past that point. But, yes, realistically, he should be hoping for at least 4000 points to be in top contention. And he could achieve that even by losing in two of the claycourt Masters.
helterskelter
G.O.A.T.
At this point, it seems pretty clear that Nadal has every chance of finishing the year as #1. True, he still trails Federer by 1,750 points in the race. But Federer is unlikely to play again until Stuttgart, by which time it is almost certain that Nadal will be well ahead. Nadal is going to pick up 500 points at Barcelona this week and 2,000 points at Roland Garros. That's a given. So he'll be, at a minimum, 750 points ahead. He will likely win at least one of Madrid and Rome, too, and possibly both. So, he'll likely be 1,750 points ahead, perhaps 2,750 points ahead, and probably in the region of 2,000 points ahead. No doubt Federer will recover a lot of that ground in the grass season, but even if he does, the most positive likely outcome for him is that he is in the same position going into the Canada final in 2018 that he was in 2017. More likely, the position at that point will be more favorable to Nadal and less favorable to Federer.
And Del Potro is not out of contention either this year. Even Zverev might have a chance.
Long story short, Federer's chances before the 2017 Montreal final were a lot higher than they are right now.
@Chanwan - agreed?
And Del Potro is not out of contention either this year. Even Zverev might have a chance.
Long story short, Federer's chances before the 2017 Montreal final were a lot higher than they are right now.
@Chanwan - agreed?
Zhilady
Professional
Almost halfway through the claycourt season now, and Nadal is doing better than I expected him to. But with today's loss, it is guaranteed that he won't do better than he did last year during the claycourt season. Which means that Federer will have less points to make up post-French Open than he did last year.
But perhaps the best thing for Federer is that nobody else is stepping up to the plate. Del Potro isn't exactly setting the world on fire. Cilic is underperforming. Zverev is catching up, but I don't know if I buy him as an YE#1 prospect yet. Djokovic is performing miserably and is close to being completely out of contention. Looks more and more like it's going to be Federer vs Nadal again.
The race, as it stands, with 3000 more claycourt points up for grabs, and Nadal trailing Federer by 1060 points.
1. Federer - 3110
2. Del Potro - 2220
3. Nadal - 2050
4. Zverev - 1905
5. Cilic - 1660
10. Dimitrov - 1275
73. Djokovic - 345
But perhaps the best thing for Federer is that nobody else is stepping up to the plate. Del Potro isn't exactly setting the world on fire. Cilic is underperforming. Zverev is catching up, but I don't know if I buy him as an YE#1 prospect yet. Djokovic is performing miserably and is close to being completely out of contention. Looks more and more like it's going to be Federer vs Nadal again.
The race, as it stands, with 3000 more claycourt points up for grabs, and Nadal trailing Federer by 1060 points.
1. Federer - 3110
2. Del Potro - 2220
3. Nadal - 2050
4. Zverev - 1905
5. Cilic - 1660
10. Dimitrov - 1275
73. Djokovic - 345
Yeah, year end versus weeks nr.1 is a silly argument. It's basically saying that Calendar Grand Slam is superior to six in a row. Just because you didn't win them in a calendar year.
Julian Houston
Semi-Pro
Nadal is real threat because he will try to play whole year.
mellowyellow
Legend
I would be shocked if either makes Wimbledon or USO finals
