US Open Seeding

This is very much up for grabs. If Nadal and Federer were to get 0 points over the summer, Nadal would have an 85-point ranking lead the week before the US Open. This means, for example, that if they played one MS event each and Federer outperformed Nadal making the QF or further, Federer would be #2 seed. To me, this might make it worth playing both Canada and Cincinnati, which might also have the benefit of forcing him not to dwell on today's match.
 

chimneysweep

Semi-Pro
I fully expect them to wind up in the same half anyway. Federer-Nadal U.S Open match hasnt happened yet. Time is running out on it perhaps. No way they put one with Djokovic, making the match up unlikely.
 

Pantera

Banned
This is very much up for grabs. If Nadal and Federer were to get 0 points over the summer, Nadal would have an 85-point ranking lead the week before the US Open. This means, for example, that if they played one MS event each and Federer outperformed Nadal making the QF or further, Federer would be #2 seed. To me, this might make it worth playing both Canada and Cincinnati, which might also have the benefit of forcing him not to dwell on today's match.
What difference does it make? Federer will fans will still complain about Nadal's draw.
 

Goof

Semi-Pro
With Rafa saying he'll play Canada and maybe Cincy, and Federer saying he'll play only Cincy, it looks like it's going to be a close battle for the #2 seed at the US Open. Rafa has a 485 point lead and a title to defend in Canada, and Federer has a final to defend in Cincy. Nadal would probably be better off physically avoiding Cincy, but he may have no choice but to play there if he wants to ensure avoiding Novak's half of the draw in New York.
 
What difference does it make? Federer will fans will still complain about Nadal's draw.
On paper:

50% chance it makes no difference - they draw each other in the semis, anyway, as happened at Wimbledon.

50% chance it makes the difference between a semi against Djokovic and a semi against Thiem.

In practice:

If the draws are rigged, they will put Nadal and Federer in the same half, anyway. While Djokovic is very likely to make the semis, god knows who'll make it in the quarter that doesn't contain one of Djokovic, Nadal, and Federer.
 

zep

Hall of Fame
Does it even matter? We all know that US Open will place both Federer and Nadal in the same half.
 

Goof

Semi-Pro
And that's if Nadal only plays Canada. Nadal hasn't confirmed he's not playing Cincinnati has he? I doubt he'll play Cincinnati if he wins Canada, and I guess the same is true if he loses the final, but otherwise, he might play.
Nadal said on Thursday that he will play Canada "and maybe Cincinnati". I'm not sure if he would play Cincy for just rankings points, but I'd bet he'll play it for match experience if he loses early enough in Canada.
 

Pantera

Banned
On paper:

50% chance it makes no difference - they draw each other in the semis, anyway, as happened at Wimbledon.

50% chance it makes the difference between a semi against Djokovic and a semi against Thiem.

In practice:

If the draws are rigged, they will put Nadal and Federer in the same half, anyway. While Djokovic is very likely to make the semis, god knows who'll make it in the quarter that doesn't contain one of Djokovic, Nadal, and Federer.
Draws are rigged but i think they will federer in djokovic half. America would want a chance of Nadal v Federer final.
 

Sentinel

Bionic Poster
Nadal said on Thursday that he will play Canada "and maybe Cincinnati". I'm not sure if he would play Cincy for just rankings points, but I'd bet he'll play it for match experience if he loses early enough in Canada.
But isn't he injured, by definition, since he lost???
 

tennisaddict

Bionic Poster
It doesn’t matter . Draws are rigged to keep the slam count close

Rafa and Fed will be on same side but it is no guarantee both make the SF here
 
Draws are rigged but i think they will federer in djokovic half. America would want a chance of Nadal v Federer final.
If they're going to rig it to maximize chances of a Nadal/Federer final, then the #2/#3 slot matters a great deal, because the #2 seed can't be in Djokovic's half. I think it's a fool's errand, as Djokovic would likely beat Federer, so they ought to play safe with a Federer/Nadal semi if they are rigging it.
 
Has he still not defended a non-clay title? Honest question.
Non-clay titles:
Qatar 2014
AO 2009
Dubai 2006
Indian Wells 2007, 2009, 2013
Stuttgart 2015
Queen's 2008
Wimbledon 2008, 2010
Olympics 2008
Canada 2005, 2008, 2013, 2018
Cincinnati 2013
USO 2010, 2013, 2017
Beijing 2005, 2013
Tokyo 2010
Madrid 2005
 

deaner2211

Semi-Pro
With Roger skipping Montreal it's impossible for him to get #2
No it is not because he skipped it last year and is defending 0 points while Nadal won it and is defending 1000 points. There is less than 600 points between Fed and Nadal which means that Nadal has to make the finals to keep the lead.
 

weakera

Hall of Fame
No it is not because he skipped it last year and is defending 0 points while Nadal won it and is defending 1000 points. There is less than 600 points between Fed and Nadal which means that Nadal has to make the finals to keep the lead.
So Bull is defending 1000 points and Roger is defending 600 finals points and Bull is like 480 ahead.
 

Pantera

Banned
If they're going to rig it to maximize chances of a Nadal/Federer final, then the #2/#3 slot matters a great deal, because the #2 seed can't be in Djokovic's half. I think it's a fool's errand, as Djokovic would likely beat Federer, so they ought to play safe with a Federer/Nadal semi if they are rigging it.
Ill bet kyrgios is in djokovic quarter
 
Ill bet kyrgios is in djokovic quarter
Chances of that go up if he has a good hard-court season. If he shows up out of shape, then it's a waste of a seemingly tough draw. If he shows up in form, he's a handful for anybody. I still think he's got more potential upside than any player born between 1989 and 1996, inclusive (except for Thiem on clay and possibly Dimitrov, but the ship has sailed on Dimitrov fulfilling his potential whereas it hasn't sailed on Kyrgios fulfilling his) and hope he can get his act together.

By the way, I had a few questions for you about your view that when ranking players the criteria should be: 1) Number of Slam titles [or, for lower-ranked players, furthest round reached, right?] 2) In event of a tie in criteria 1, head-to-head record is a tiebreak. My questions are:

1) Did I get your view right? Please correct me if I'm wrong.
2) If I'm right, what happens if the head-to-head is also tied? Are they tied overall, or is there some further criteria 3 in event of a tie in both 1 and 2?
3) What happens if three players are tied but the head to head can't resolve it because player A leads player B, player B leads player C, but player C leads player A? E.g. imagine that Nadal and Djokovic both win two more US Open titles, Nadal remains ahead of Djokovic in their series in the US Open, Djokovic beats Federer once more there and so goes ahead of him in their series, but Federer finally plays Nadal at the US Open and beats him. All three have five titles, but the head to head can't be used as a tiebreak because it has the conclusion that Nadal ranks ahead of Djokovic who ranks ahead of Federer who ranks ahead of Nadal.
 

Pantera

Banned
Chances of that go up if he has a good hard-court season. If he shows up out of shape, then it's a waste of a seemingly tough draw. If he shows up in form, he's a handful for anybody. I still think he's got more potential upside than any player born between 1989 and 1996, inclusive (except for Thiem on clay and possibly Dimitrov, but the ship has sailed on Dimitrov fulfilling his potential whereas it hasn't sailed on Kyrgios fulfilling his) and hope he can get his act together.

By the way, I had a few questions for you about your view that when ranking players the criteria should be: 1) Number of Slam titles [or, for lower-ranked players, furthest round reached, right?] 2) In event of a tie in criteria 1, head-to-head record is a tiebreak. My questions are:

1) Did I get your view right? Please correct me if I'm wrong.
2) If I'm right, what happens if the head-to-head is also tied? Are they tied overall, or is there some further criteria 3 in event of a tie in both 1 and 2?
3) What happens if three players are tied but the head to head can't resolve it because player A leads player B, player B leads player C, but player C leads player A? E.g. imagine that Nadal and Djokovic both win two more US Open titles, Nadal remains ahead of Djokovic in their series in the US Open, Djokovic beats Federer once more there and so goes ahead of him in their series, but Federer finally plays Nadal at the US Open and beats him. All three have five titles, but the head to head can't be used as a tiebreak because it has the conclusion that Nadal ranks ahead of Djokovic who ranks ahead of Federer who ranks ahead of Nadal.
Agree about Kyrgios although his problem is felix and Tsitsipas who i feel will prevent him ever winning a Major as they a few years younger and have room to develop.

In answer to your questions my view on ranking players is two fold...one is doing it according to Majors won as thats the most popular way of doing it, but then a much more detailed analysis taking into account YE1, strength of field, Masters 1000s, Olympics, and h2h. I ignore WTF due to comments made by Sampras back in the day which took gloss off Becker win in 1995, back then i was massive Becker fan.

Weeks at no.1 has never bothered me as to me no.1 is about a particular year and who is best that year and much more should be made of YE1...its like a football season winning the league. Then again i think not having equal amount of masters 1000 across surfaces is a travesty and makes YE1 diluted a bit as clearly we need three on grass...3 on hard 3 on clay.

In answer to your other good question its an interesting point. Lets say Nadal and Murray also had 5 wimbledons. Djokovic is 2-1 v Nadal but 0-1 v Murray and Murray is 0-3 v nadal. I think then it has to be looked at performances at other events on same surfaces a tier below. Ill never subscribe to who was runner up the most as players i doubt cherish runner up spots unless they a bautista agut type guy...hard worker but limited.

Hence why i never say Nadal is better on hard than Djokovic...i just say at the USO. I think nadal v djokovic at US Open isnt so much about surface although it does suit nadal there more than AO but about the whole razmatazz. I think nadal loves the wild new york crowd like connors did. Im not sure djokovic does.

So where u say if majors won and h2h is tied what happens next, id look at the tier below to see who has done better at canada and cincinatti as they are part of USO series.

Federer at the USO to me is very confusing. He was unbeatable there but then became so vulnerable which coincides with the emergence of the Nadal Djokovic murray delpo wawrinka era. Its the one event where it seems the game moved on from him. Yet at AO he remained very competitive and won two events in his 30s.

I dont have an issue with people who think runners up spots should be looked at. I just think how i would feel as a pro player. Losing a final would crush me if i wanted to be the best ever as id expect to win everything if that makes sense.

Has that answered your questions at all?

In a nutshell personally i think way too much emphasis is on majors and masters 1000s should be looked at as well but then again federer is at a massive disadvantage as he has not one on grass.

The tennis calendar needs massive reform really.
 
Agree about Kyrgios although his problem is felix and Tsitsipas who i feel will prevent him ever winning a Major as they a few years younger and have room to develop.

In answer to your questions my view on ranking players is two fold...one is doing it according to Majors won as thats the most popular way of doing it, but then a much more detailed analysis taking into account YE1, strength of field, Masters 1000s, Olympics, and h2h. I ignore WTF due to comments made by Sampras back in the day which took gloss off Becker win in 1995, back then i was massive Becker fan.

Weeks at no.1 has never bothered me as to me no.1 is about a particular year and who is best that year and much more should be made of YE1...its like a football season winning the league. Then again i think not having equal amount of masters 1000 across surfaces is a travesty and makes YE1 diluted a bit as clearly we need three on grass...3 on hard 3 on clay.

In answer to your other good question its an interesting point. Lets say Nadal and Murray also had 5 wimbledons. Djokovic is 2-1 v Nadal but 0-1 v Murray and Murray is 0-3 v nadal. I think then it has to be looked at performances at other events on same surfaces a tier below. Ill never subscribe to who was runner up the most as players i doubt cherish runner up spots unless they a bautista agut type guy...hard worker but limited.

Hence why i never say Nadal is better on hard than Djokovic...i just say at the USO. I think nadal v djokovic at US Open isnt so much about surface although it does suit nadal there more than AO but about the whole razmatazz. I think nadal loves the wild new york crowd like connors did. Im not sure djokovic does.

So where u say if majors won and h2h is tied what happens next, id look at the tier below to see who has done better at canada and cincinatti as they are part of USO series.

Federer at the USO to me is very confusing. He was unbeatable there but then became so vulnerable which coincides with the emergence of the Nadal Djokovic murray delpo wawrinka era. Its the one event where it seems the game moved on from him. Yet at AO he remained very competitive and won two events in his 30s.

I dont have an issue with people who think runners up spots should be looked at. I just think how i would feel as a pro player. Losing a final would crush me if i wanted to be the best ever as id expect to win everything if that makes sense.

Has that answered your questions at all?

In a nutshell personally i think way too much emphasis is on majors and masters 1000s should be looked at as well but then again federer is at a massive disadvantage as he has not one on grass.

The tennis calendar needs massive reform really.
On being runner-up: you might be right about the very top players. And no doubt Murray is frustrated about losing so many finals, but I also think that at his level he will in time regard making those finals as a significant achievement. And any lower, I think you'll get players who are very proud of having made the final. Sure, Wawrinka will be frustrated that he lost to Nadal at RG 2017, but I think he'll also be proud he beat Murray in the semis. He's only made four finals, so I think they are meaningful to him. You might be right that they are less meaningful to Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic. But even then, there's I think a difference between how one feels right after the loss and how one feels on reflection much later. The sad thing about a knockout tournament is that the runner-up can't celebrate at all, as they invariably end on a down note. In a league, a runner-up who is way behind the top team but just edges out a rival for second/third spot at the end of the year can sometimes celebrate if they finish on a high note. Or someone who gets silver in a track and field race at the Olympics may be as happy about getting second as they are sad about not getting first. It's partly the format of tennis that makes being runner-up seem less significant than I think it is. My view is based on my feelings as a fan. I love the fact that each match is a tournament in its own right and players and fans can get caught up in them. Nine days ago, someone posted that they didn't get why Evans and Sousa were fighting so hard in their third-round match when the winner would inevitably lose to Nadal in round 4 on the following Monday. I replied saying that for players of their ability, just making round 4 is a huge achievement. And, also, players are very competitive and love winning even if the win doesn't end up being meaningful in their career. I'm sure Federer enjoyed beating Wawrinka at Roland Garros, even though making a semi-final is not a big achievement for him all things considered. And I doubt he now regrets beating Wawrinka and wishes he'd lost so that Wawrinka would have a very outside chance against Nadal.
 

Pantera

Banned
On being runner-up: you might be right about the very top players. And no doubt Murray is frustrated about losing so many finals, but I also think that at his level he will in time regard making those finals as a significant achievement. And any lower, I think you'll get players who are very proud of having made the final. Sure, Wawrinka will be frustrated that he lost to Nadal at RG 2017, but I think he'll also be proud he beat Murray in the semis. He's only made four finals, so I think they are meaningful to him. You might be right that they are less meaningful to Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic. But even then, there's I think a difference between how one feels right after the loss and how one feels on reflection much later. The sad thing about a knockout tournament is that the runner-up can't celebrate at all, as they invariably end on a down note. In a league, a runner-up who is way behind the top team but just edges out a rival for second/third spot at the end of the year can sometimes celebrate if they finish on a high note. Or someone who gets silver in a track and field race at the Olympics may be as happy about getting second as they are sad about not getting first. It's partly the format of tennis that makes being runner-up seem less significant than I think it is. My view is based on my feelings as a fan. I love the fact that each match is a tournament in its own right and players and fans can get caught up in them. Nine days ago, someone posted that they didn't get why Evans and Sousa were fighting so hard in their third-round match when the winner would inevitably lose to Nadal in round 4 on the following Monday. I replied saying that for players of their ability, just making round 4 is a huge achievement. And, also, players are very competitive and love winning even if the win doesn't end up being meaningful in their career. I'm sure Federer enjoyed beating Wawrinka at Roland Garros, even though making a semi-final is not a big achievement for him all things considered. And I doubt he now regrets beating Wawrinka and wishes he'd lost so that Wawrinka would have a very outside chance against Nadal.
Yes i agree with much of that. Nadal federer and djokovic are probably the 3 greatest sports people of all time so their expectations are obviously different to say Delpo or wawrinka. But i just think back to how distraught Delpo was last year at USO when he lost. Nadal never looks a bundle of laughs when runner up.

I think players measure things according to their own levels. I think Nadal said that to kids about how to measure success.

Personally Nadals win over federer in ao 2024 means nothing as Rafa didnt win the final. But i do agree that in time perhaps runner up means alot more. After all in all the record books it says winner...and the runner up and one does get a trophy for runner up. And like u say in olympics silver medal is an achievement.

Roger should be immensely proud if this wimbkedon. Banter aside he was heroic. He beat Nadal and almost beat Novak. He is not far off 40. There is alot to be proud of. At the moment the squandered match points will be killing him.

But in 10 years time he will realise that all of us as we get older lose our nerve...its why car insurance comes down with age as we dont take as many risks. Roger 10 years ago would have smoked both Fhs rather than guide them. Physically he like a 20 year old...mentally though the brain is where it is.

Djokovic was choking as well....nadal nowadays gets very nervous. So in time inagree runners up spots are to be looked back on with pride...i just feel it probably is after retirement that happens. Becker though hates his wimbledon 3-4 record although in his csse that 1995 final he threw away by serving rubbish after 1st set.

I think if a player plays beneath themselves they regret it. But Federer played above himself yesterday. When has he ever hit 25 aces?
 
Top