"Scheduling Smarts Help Federer Return To No. 1..."

merlinpinpin

Hall of Fame
Nice blog:


Scheduling Smarts Help Federer Return To No. 1, Leaving Djokovic, Nadal Scratching Their Heads
by Sean Randall
The ATP computer doesn’t lie. It doesn’t play favorites or instincts. It just processes numbers. In the last 12 months Roger Federer has one Grand Slam title in one final. Rival Novak Djokovic has two Grand Slam titles in three finals, Rafael Nadal has one title in three finals. Yet it is Federer standing on top the men’s rankings today and not Djokovic or Nadal. Why? Because the Swiss knows how to play the schedule and make the most of his ranking points.

I wrote last year that I thought nobody in the history of tennis schedules smarter than Federer. And with his latest coup on the rankings we have further confirmation: His scheduling prowess is indeed another weapon.

While Djokovic and Nadal were “resting” (on their laurels?) at the end of last year and in February after the Australian, thinking it was a 1-2 race, Federer was busy collecting titles, snatching points like the ATP finals with a secret eye on returning to No. 1 and overtaking Pete Sampras’ record. Rotterdam, Basel, etc are not the biggest of wins, but collectively they add up and after he won Wimbledon on Sunday those smaller events finally paid off awarding him just enough to sneak past Djokovic by 75 points. That’s right, 75 points.

With the disparity in Slam results, people will question the validity of his ranking. But facts are facts are facts. He’s accrued more points the last 12 months than anyone else. The ATP finals and the Paris Indoors, two events Djokovic, who had long wrapped up No. 1 earlier in the year, basically half-assed out of are costing him today. Now he’s looking up at the rankings. Nadal the same.

With the top-heaviness of the men’s tour, Federer is basically telling his rivals, “If you don’t want those events, great, because I’ll come in and take them.”

The season isn’t nine months, it’s 11. Federer understands that. I don’t think Djokovic and Nadal do.

So Djokovic/Nadal collectively have to be thinking, “What the hell just happened? We’ve dominated the Slams! The old man was dead and buried and now he’s in the driver’s seat for No. 1? Huh?”

Djokovic and to some extent Nadal have played the high risk game of betting on their Slam results. It’s the same one employed by the Williams sisters, Agassi and others, with mixed success. But there’s a very low margin for error. If you don’t do well - like Nadal did at Wimbledon - your rankings suffer. And Novak’s in a similar situation.

When someone like Federer is piling up points all the events you might not care about, you can get yourself in trouble with the rankings. That’s what happened.

But then again, are these guys like Novak and Rafa even interested in the No. 1 ranking? I don’t know. Greats like Sampras, Lendl, McEnroe were. Maybe this generation, aside from Federer, don’t care. Maybe for them the challenge of staying on top for an extended period of time is far too tough these days. I don’t know.

For Djokovic, the problem may be much deeper. I really thought after the way he finished the French Open final against Nadal he had his game on track after an off-peak start to the season. But against Federer in the semifinals last week at times he appeared to be resigned to losing; the road back was just too tough and that drive, the belief wasn’t there. Like he had said, “You know what, I reached my goals, I made my No. 1, I won my Wimbledon last year, that’s good enough.”

And really that’s been the case for Novak since the US Open. It’s as if after he won New York he took a big fat exhale. To be the best in any sport, you can’t do that. Federer never did. Sampras never did. Novak probably did. (Again, facts are facts, since his US Open win he has won just TWO titles.)

The way Novak played against Roger - and Roger played really well - I have to wonder how much the guy really wants it. At 25 Novak is in the very prime of his career. He should be at his peak. But does he want to put the work in to stay the best or now that he’s reached the top does he want to enjoy all the spoils that come with it like being in movies or commercials, etc? Right now, it’s probably the latter.

As for Nadal, Rafa we know he puts the work in. He wants it. But I’m not sure his body will allow it. With the clay/grass season over and hardcourts ahead from here until the end, it’s tough to see Rafa doing much damage - remember he hasn’t won off clay since 2010 Tokyo, but he’s going to fight for it. Somehow Rafa’s going to need to start winning on surfaces other than clay. At 26 with his knee troubles, it’s a tall order.

Back to Federer. I’m not surprised at all he won Wimbledon. It’s his best surface, Djokovic’s worst and we know Nadal can be vulnerable on grass. Roger, shrugged off a bad back, got hot and rode his serve and belief across the finish line.

At the close of Wimbledon, Roger was serving unbelievably well (roof helped but it wasn’t the determining factor) and in the final he really was remarkably firm in those backhand-to-backhand exchanges with Murray. And I haven’t seen anyone volley that well in a Wimbledon final in a very, very long time. At times it was a majestic display.

It was a title Federer deserved. At 30, he turned back time proving a lot of people wrong, myself included to some extent. In the end it comes down to priorities and goals and Federer remarkably continues to achieve his.

And thanks to Federer, for the first time in many years we should have an intriguing 3-way race to the finish. Roger gets the edge in my mind. If he can steal a Masters title (or final with an Olympics title) this summer and reach at least the finals at the US Open that should be enough for him to finish No. 1 and press his colleagues. I say that because in the fall Federer, back willing, figures again to be at ease indoors while Nadal likely running on fumes and Djokovic perhaps packing it in.

So with Roger back in front, Novak/Rafa, your move?


http://www.tennis-x.com/xblog/2012-07-10/10268.php
 

JSummers

Rookie
Good read. But I don't think it's mental or drive alone. In 2011 Djoker all but exhausted himself physically after a brilliant 9 months. Even willing in spirit, his body didn't hold up. For Nadal, as shown in past years, his knees accumulate enough mileage and needs a pitstop right about after USO.

So the playing style and longevity had a role here.
 

NADALWON

Banned
Edit: "Scheduling smarts and Rosol help federer return to no. 1...."

Okay now I agree. Not unlike Soderling at RG 2009.
 

Bartelby

Bionic Poster
'The season isn’t nine months, it’s 11. Federer understands that. I don’t think Djokovic and Nadal do.'


I'm sure they all understand this, but the fact is that even though Federer had a very good end of season, he still had to intrude into Nadal's clay court dominance and win Wimbledon to get back to number one.

The simple fact is that, if anything, Federer went missing for nine months of 2011 whereas Nadal and Djokovic did not.
 

glazkovss

Professional
It all makes Federer an ultimate tennis player: best technique, best tactics, best fitness (no serious injuries), best schedule, even best look. Only thing he lacks is best mentality (Rafa or Djoker).
 

NADALWON

Banned
It all makes Federer an ultimate tennis player: best technique, best tactics, best fitness (no serious injuries), best schedule, even best look. Only thing he lacks is best mentality (Rafa or Djoker).

And he's got the best stamina on tour from January - November..
 

Tony48

Legend
Scheduling smart? LOL. He just happened to WIN more often during his schedule.

When someone like Federer is piling up points all the events you might not care about, you can get yourself in trouble with the rankings. That’s what happened.

We are well aware of Wozniacki.
 

paulorenzo

Hall of Fame
'The season isn’t nine months, it’s 11. Federer understands that. I don’t think Djokovic and Nadal do.'


I'm sure they all understand this, but the fact is that even though Federer had a very good end of season, he still had to intrude into Nadal's clay court dominance and win Wimbledon to get back to number one.

The simple fact is that, if anything, Federer went missing for nine months of 2011 whereas Nadal and Djokovic did not.

naturally federer would have had to intrude his way into good results in 2012 and win a slam in order to regain the No.1 ranking. how else would he out-point djokovic and nadal, the only two players who have slam-winner/finalist points in the rankings prior to wimby? he wasn't going to do it through the indoor titles from 2011 alone.


about your comment on federer being missing for 9 months in 2011 compared to novak and rafa only being missing for 3 months—
the thing is, where it seems as though federer had little to no say in having poor results during the 9 months in which he was missing, rafa and especially novak both had a say in in having poor results during 3 months in which they were missing. while federer seemed to try his best to be relevant for most of 2011, it seemed as though novak/rafa decided to ease off a bit after the hardourt season. if either of them had taken an indoor tournament from federer, even if novak got to one round further in any of his late season tournies, federer would not be number 1.
 

Logan71

Rookie
I also believe obviously physicality has a lot to do with Federer snatching number 1.

His body holds up better than anyone,I think he still hasn't retired from a match something the other 2 do regulary.He just isn't taxed as much and considering his back was bad during wimbledon,his economy of movement must have helped him work through the injury without making it worse.

I also can only remember the ankle injury in 05 being the only serious issue Federer has had with his wheels,compare Nadal foot,knees serious amount of times off.He just pounds the court underneath him,Federer glides.

Then there's the mental aspect it takes a massive amount of intensity to play like Nadal,perhaps less so for Djokovic because he can hit more winners therefore winning games with faster execution.
Interestingly though Mcenroe offered that Novak couldn't continue taking it to the wire in slams and keep expecting to win.In fact he has looked disengaged at times to me.The final at the French and the semi at wimbledon where was the roar and beating of the chest when he needed it?

I have mentioned on here before that I think his grandfather's death has had a delayed effect on him and at times his mind is wandering and his tennis has been effected.

Federer meanwhile is happy,married,a father,mature,and has delivered so repeatedly that he knows the next big win is always a possibility,and is there any other player in history maybe Laver who has so many gifts that he has absolute trust in his talent,that this makes him mentally relaxed that he can win.
 

purge

Hall of Fame
it is true tho that due to his personality djoko is much more likely to get distracted from the everyday tennis routine by the offers and benefits that inevitably come with the ultimate success. thats the main reason id never imagine him to stay on top of the game for as long as federer has, rather than the physical issues of his more taxing playstyle
 

Feather

Legend
it is true tho that due to his personality djoko is much more likely to get distracted from the everyday tennis routine by the offers and benefits that inevitably come with the ultimate success. thats the main reason id never imagine him to stay on top of the game for as long as federer has, rather than the physical issues of his more taxing playstyle


Very well said, nice point
 

Bartelby

Bionic Poster
I was referring to the blue clay court victory of Federer which may or may not have been influenced by the blue issue.

Wimbledon was a clear win against top quality competition.

But the top three are one a piece with the Olympics and the US to go so its still not clear who will dominate the year.



naturally federer would have had to intrude his way into good results in 2012 and win a slam in order to regain the No.1 ranking. how else would he out-point djokovic and nadal, the only two players who have slam-winner/finalist points in the rankings prior to wimby? he wasn't going to do it through the indoor titles from 2011 alone.


about your comment on federer being missing for 9 months in 2011 compared to novak and rafa only being missing for 3 months—
the thing is, where it seems as though federer had little to no say in having poor results during the 9 months in which he was missing, rafa and especially novak both had a say in in having poor results during 3 months in which they were missing. while federer seemed to try his best to be relevant for most of 2011, it seemed as though novak/rafa decided to ease off a bit after the hardourt season. if either of them had taken an indoor tournament from federer, even if novak got to one round further in any of his late season tournies, federer would not be number 1.
 

paulorenzo

Hall of Fame
I was referring to the blue clay court victory of Federer which may or may not have been influenced by the blue issue.

Wimbledon was a clear win against top quality competition.

But the top three are one a piece with the Olympics and the US to go so its still not clear who will dominate the year.

i was mostly replying to your statement of federer missing 9 months of the 2011 season. like i said, he didnt have much of a choice but to play third fiddle, whereas nadal/djokovic could have very well tried to do a little more after the USO, but didnt feel the need to.

i think i now understand what you were saying with the other part though. with the state of the 2012 season and the race to the year end No.1, federer had to get a clay win as well as wimby to edge the other two so far in the season w/ no clear sign as to who will dominate, etc. i get it now, seeing the ranking from an atp points race/year-to-date perspective where federer was clearly behind novak/rafa.

at first i was thinking you had a more 12 month ranking in mind where it seemed as if you were insinuating federer still couldn't get number one, despite his indoor 2011 results, until he managed to steal a clay title and win wimbledon. and my response to that was somewhat like, "of course, what would you expect he would have had to do?"

although i still stand by my rant about my response to your "fed missing for 9 months where as djokdal were not" :)
 

Bartelby

Bionic Poster
I hope Fed is back into slam-winning form but I won't be convinced until this time next year.

Is Fed back permanently, Djoko eternally listless, Nadal injured, Murray a perennial runner up?

Only the latter statement seems more probable than not, everything else is very difficult.

i can't see Fed winning the Olympics, but probably the US and he'd be my favourite for the YEC.
 

paulorenzo

Hall of Fame
I hope Fed is back into slam-winning form but I won't be convinced until this time next year.

Is Fed back permanently, Djoko eternally listless, Nadal injured, Murray a perennial runner up?

Only the latter statement seems more probable than not, everything else is very difficult.

i can't see Fed winning the Olympics, but probably the US and he'd be my favourite for the YEC.

agreed, i wont be sold that federer is back until next year either unless he wins this years USO and the following AO. i don't see him winning AO though. i can't pick federer as the favorite for the olympics either, even though his wimbledon results says otherwise. if he does well during the american hard court swing, i'd pick him for USO.
 
The premise that Fed regained no.1 by playing a lot more events is flawed. Basel - Fed's always been there, so was Djokovic. Nadal and Djok were also there at WTF, IW, Madrid, etc. Only Amsterdam was the new event on the calendar. And Fed actually skipped Monte Carlo, a 1000 event, which both Nadal and Djok played.
So it's not some new or brilliant scheduling strategy. The return to no. 1 is the combination of just sheer winning and the way the points work - defending points vs gaining new points. But that's the way it works for everyone.
 

Bartelby

Bionic Poster
Nadal is third favourite for the Olympics at 4 to 1. If you're prepared to gamble that he's recovered those are good odds.
 

Zildite

Hall of Fame
Scheduling smart? LOL. He just happened to WIN more often during his schedule.

Yeah...Forgive my ignorance, but it doesn't seem like rocket science or anything. GOAT of scheduling, that's a new one.
There is a point with Djokovic not entering smaller tournaments (no ATP events before AO, no Belgrade before RG, no Queens/Halle, maybe tanking 500s) but if Fed didn't start 'undeclining' as mentioned in another thread the schedule wouldn't have helped much. He got there by winning.
I would think his playing style is more important in maintaining that consistency throughout every event...On the other hand, Djokovic was a broken down mess post-USO last year and everyone knows about Nadal supposedly running out of gas around that time.
 

Bobby Jr

G.O.A.T.
The premise that Fed regained no.1 by playing a lot more events is flawed. Basel - Fed's always been there, so was Djokovic. Nadal and Djok were also there at WTF, IW, Madrid, etc. Only Amsterdam was the new event on the calendar. And Fed actually skipped Monte Carlo, a 1000 event, which both Nadal and Djok played.
So it's not some new or brilliant scheduling strategy. The return to no. 1 is the combination of just sheer winning and the way the points work - defending points vs gaining new points. But that's the way it works for everyone.
This ^ pretty much.

The author has over-thought it a heap. Federer had a poor run of form last year. When he righted that he won, lots.

If not for any of the losses Djokovic has suffered in lesser tournaments to pigeons - Isner at Indian Wells or Tipsarevic in Madrid for example - he would still be number one.

You can say the same about any close race... look back on some loss in the distant past and see how it would have made a difference but, really, someone winning lots will simply end up having the top rank somewhere down the track - as Federer has done.

Nothing new to see here.. it's happened forever.
 

vkartikv

Hall of Fame
How can anyone doubt if djokovic or nadal really care about # 1 or about winning events after the USO? if federer can play a full season at 31, why cant the other two?
 
Top