Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by stringertom, Oct 20, 2012.
You must think there are just 4 important tournaments.
What is Gonzo best surface for you?I'm a big fan of Gonzo and i know that his favourite surface is CLAY!
You forgot Davis Cup final.
Favorite is different from best. I'd say rebound Ace.
Even if Clay were his best surface, he wouldn't be a CC specialist because he's (almost) equally good on Hards too.
Because AO 2007? Gonzo said that his best chance for GS title is RG 2009!
You have much more tournaments on HC than CC!
I agree nole is far ahead! But Fed has more titles and won a silver and they both are level at masters and GS won! so if either of them win the WTF I think it should go to them
I don't know, from what I see, Gonzalez just isn't a claycourt specialist. For me a claycourt specialist is someone who has success on clay and not even half that success on any other surface. Gonzalez definitely isn't that.
Gonzo won 8 tournaments on CC and 3 on HC! Gonzo played AO final, yeah, Nalbandian played W final 2002 , but he isn't a GC specialist!
I think Gonzalez is a slow court specialist, being it Roland Garros or the slower courts of the Australian Open or the slow Olympic hard courts he did well on. Definitely not a fast court player. He played the best tennis match of his life in Madrid 2005 vs Ivan Ljubicic and still lost a 6-4, 2-0, 40-15 lead despite playing perfectly, doing nothing wrong, and making only about 2 unforced errors the last set and half. That was his best ever chance to win a Masters too. Even his very best on a fast court is not good enough.
Masters final - 600 ATP points
OG final - 400 ATP points
I agree with you.
It is funny how Federer fans downplay the value of the Olympics in the past but now an Olympic silver (not gold) is suddenly a big thing in the grand scheme of things.
Anyway back on topic it takes something extreme for the ATP or ITF to go against the year end rankings in their Player of Year decision. With that in mind it is highly unlikely it wont be Djokovic no matter what happens. I dont think Federer will be named Player of the Year no matter what now. Murray if he wins both Paris and WTF has a 30-40% chance, and part of that is sentiment since it is his breakthrough year.
Roddick made 3 SF of 4 slams. Federer made only 1 SF.
Roddick had ones of the best Amercian HC season ever......with 2 MS1000, US Open and another obscure 250/500 Amercian title.
Federer may have won YEC. Roddick ended YE Number 1. Roddick only year where he did better than Federer. He deserved it that year unquestionably.
This year....Federer, Djokovic and Murray are in contetion. There is competition.....Djokovic isn't a 100 percent Player of the Year. Murray got OG Gold, Federer is equal in Masters and Slams but more titles won. Plus Silver Medal. WTF could give a few swing votes to Federer.
I believe Djokovic will take the POY......but I won't be suprised if Federer comes out the winner by 1 vote.
GS and Masters finals isn't important for you?
Looking back in history the only times either the ATP or WTA or ITF (which involves both) overruled a year end #1 was in exteme cases where clearly the wrong person was #1:
1976- Connors and Borg (ok this one wasnt as clearly wrong as the others but the ATP hated Connors, lol)
1977- Connors and Borg
1978- Connors and Borg
1982- McEnroe and Connors
1989- Lendl and Becker
1990- Edberg and Lendl (ITF only, Edberg had two embarassing first round losses in slams this year, even so ATP still went with computer year end #1 Edberg)
1978- Navratilova and Evert (ITF only, this was the only non clear one but Flink who was the main one deciding for ITF is a huge Evert ass kisser)
1994- Graf and Sanchez Vicario (ITF only, despite that Sanchez clearly had a way better year than computer #1 Graf, the WTA still went with Graf)
1999- Hingis and Davenport (WTA only. Both won one slam but Davenport won the YEC, did well at all 4 slams vs Hingis losing 1st round 6-2, 6-0 at Wimbledon, Davenport was 3-0 vs Hingis this year, despite all this ITF still went with computer #1 Hingis)
2000- Venus and Hingis (WTA only, despite that Venus's year thrashed Hingis's, ITF still went with computer #1 Hingis)
2001- Davenport and Capriati
2004- Davenport and Sharapova and Henin (Davenport made no slam finals in either 2001 or 2004 but ended as computer #1)
2005- Davenport and Clijsters
2008- Jankovic and Serena (WTA only. Despite that Serena won U.S Open, Mami, and was Wimbledon finalist, vs computer year end Jankovic only having Miami and U.S Open final losses to Serena, the ITF still went with computer #1 Jankovic)
2010- Wozniacki and Clijsters (WTA only. Despite that Clijsters and Serena both had way better years than Wozniacki the ITF backed computer #1 Wozniacki as Player of Year)
2011- Wozniacki and Kvitova (the most bogus computer year end #1 in history, of course was overruled by all parties and given Player of Year to real and overwhelming 2011 #1 Kvitova, the biggest no brainer of all men or women)
So basically until the WTA went to a ******** new ranking system in 1998 which makes a mockery of the sport, and has forever tarnished any value of the #1 ranking on the WTA for players present, future, and past with their stupidity, it almost never happened.
So only in cases where the #2 or #3 had a WAY better year than the #1 has the #1 not won Player of the Year, and even in some cases where the #1 had a far inferior year to the #2 or #3 as shown above one of the WTA or ITF still often went with the year end #1. Cases where it was even close but with the #2 or #3 having a case for having a better year than the computer #1, which would only be true against Djokovic is one of Murray or Federer wins both Paris or the WTF IMO, not just the WTF, the ITF and WTA/ATP still always went with the computer #1:
1983- McEnroe and a number of others
1995- Sampras and Agassi
1998- Sampras and Rafter
2003- Roddick and Federer
1981- Evert and Austin
1987- Graf and Navratilova
1990- Graf and Seles
1998- Davenport and Hingis
He should have, was there, and withdrew just before the first match (injured himself during training).
Oh there's a good laugh. Almost like how Nadal fans downplay the importance of the YEC you mean? It may have lost some prestige over the years, but it's still the biggest event after the slams.
I don't think winning a Davis Cup title should necessarily count in a single player's favor or disfavor. Now, their Davis Cup record absolutely should. It's a big event with a lot on the line. But the event itself is contested between countries and not individual players. Someone could play one match in the final and nothing beforehand, and yet that's the equivalent of winning the WTF or and Olympic Gold to some people? Context is everything.
I agree. DC is important, but it's a team event even though the matches of course are singles with one doubles match. In the context of Federer and Nadal, Federer is never going to win the DC because he has nobody besides Wawrinka, and he's not good enough as a #2. Spain has 2 of the top 5 in the world, and they could win the DC this year without Nadal.
Djokovic made 3 F of 4 slams. Federer made only 1 F.
It's irrelevant how Roddick's achievements in 2003 compare to other seasons. ATP Player Of The Year Award is simply who had the best year in 2003.
Federer may win YEC, but Djokovic will end up as YE Number 1.
If Roddick unquestionably deserved 2003, Djokovic too unquestionably deserved 2012.
Djokovic has much better results at the slams, much better results at the Masters, will end up as YE Number 1, while Murray will end up as No. 3.
In 2003 Federer won more titles, had better head to head record and better winning percentage than Roddick...Regarding 2012 and Masters, Djokovic has much better results at the Masters than Federer (Novak won 3 + 3 finals, Roger won 3 + 0 finals).
I guess technically speaking, Djokovic has gone backwards. World number 2 and only 1 slam. Don't get me wrong, I think he's great and a credit to the sport, but although he has done well, he did better last year. If it comes to a vote, I think Murray could do well in terms of what he has acheived over the past 12 months, but I'm not being biased, he's not my favourite player, I'm just trying to look at it logically and without emotion.
Live long and prosper.
What is logic behind claim that if Murray wins WTF he will have better results in 2012 than Djokovic?
- Novak is going to be Year End No. 1 with huge lead over Murray who will finish as No. 3
- Novak is much better at the slams than Murray
- Novak is much better at the Masters than Murray
- Novak is going to have better winning percentage
Murray just better at Olympics and WTF
Unquestionably, Djokovic is more deserving PoY than Murray
So, you think Murray deserves to be number one because he has a better performance this year than last year, and on the other side Djokovic doesn't deserve #1 because he had much better results in 2011? :-?
As I've said before Paris and WTF to decide it
I'll have a go at the logic.
There were six 'big titles' up for grabs in 2012 - if Murray wins the WTF, he'll have won half of those 'big titles' while the other 3 were shared between 3 players.
Winning percentage and masters wins are all very interesting, but it's the big ones that matter.
For the record, I make Novak hot favourite to be POTY and fully expect him to be named as such - but let's not pretend that he's a slam dunk like 2011 or that there isn't a coherent argument for other players.
Ljubicic single handedly won the Davis Cup for Croatia back in I think it was 2005. If he can do that then Federer certainly could. Wawrinka is not some bum, he was top 10 at one point. Federer can play well in doubles too, he is an Olympic Champion, and there are atleast 2 others who can also play good doubles. He hasnt even really given it a chance, only playing the zone qualifications usually.
Olympics and WTF are all very interesting, but it's performance at the slams that matter:
Novak 1 W + 2 F + 1 SF
Murray 1 W + 1 F + 1 SF + 1 QF
No, there isn't.
That's impossible - did he play doubles alone?
Sigh. I've just made a coherent argument for Murray. You asked what the logic is for Murray being POTY if he wins WTF and I've stated what that logic is. I could probably do the same for Roger if he won WTF. The fact that you don't think it is enough to change your view doesn't mean the argument isn't coherent or lacks logic - it just means that you don't find it to be compelling enough to change your view.
When will Nole be picking up his highest winning percentage and most masters series awards? Answer, he won't be - they are just things you've thrown into the ring to support your position - Olympic Gold and WTF on the other hand are things that pros aspire to at the start of a season. When asked in January, Nole said his 2 major focus items for the year were RG and OG - I've yet to hear him or anyone else say their main aims of the year are 'to win the most masters series' or 'to have the highest winning percentage'. You really think Nole would prefer to have won most Masters Series rather than be Olympic Champion? Me neither. You think Nole would rather have the highest winning % than win the WTF? QED winning OG/WTF > winning most MS/highest winning %.
The fact of the matter is that there were 6 big prizes up for grabs in 2012 - Nole publicly stated which 2 were his priorities and he failed to land either of them. IMO, he's still the POTY - but to suggest he's the only show in town is stretching things.
My mind says it's Federer with all his record breaking this season and return to the top but my gut says Lukas Rosol --his day of greatness will be remembered for eons.
It's funny how Andy's fans diminishes the value of Masters tournaments this year, previous years that was not been the case. :neutral:
No mate - what's funny is how they've taken on great importance this year - the first year in 5 that Murray hasn't bagged at least a couple. In previous years I've been told they don't matter, that the top guys don't try at them, that best of 3 wins don't mean jack.
But now it seems they do matter, that the top guys do try at them and best of 3 wins do mean jack.
As for me, Masters tournaments are very important, but unfortunately there are people who value only Grand Slam tournaments...
The fact of the matter is that there are 4 big tournaments in a tennis' season: Australian Open, French Open, Wimbledon and US Open. They ain't called majors for nothing. Therefore, your argument is not coherent.
In which case, can you explain why your boy publicly prioritised winning the OG over AO, Wimbledon and the USO?
I tend to agree.
2012 has been fun due to so many plot twists that have occurred. The AO results did little to change the prevailing belief we were entering a new GOAT era. Then a bit of a hint of what was in the offing...the old guy wins a couple of 500's and a MS1000 (yes, they DO matter....a grand in points is a lot). Then, the blue clay blues sung by the top two, another MS1000 for the old guy, and a resurgent Bull on the red dirt. The split decision on Wimby grass, empty tanks from so much play, and then Murray breaking through for a major.
It's no small wonder we have diverse opinions on who gets POY. There have been at least three sea changes since last WTF. The winner who tacks through the fourth should get it. Right now, Djok leads at the turn but some skilled sailing by either Rogi or Andy may push them across the finish line first. A Paris/WTF double does just that.
Actually, batz's argument *is* quite coherent, you just fail (or don't want) to recognize it. And should Federer win in London, there will also be a very good case for awarding him the Player of the Year award (which doesn't mean much anyway in the grand scheme of things).
Thank you. He can reject my argument all he likes; that's his prerogative - but he seems to be confusing agreement with my argument with whether or not it is coherent - thanks again for recognising the difference.
Can you explain why Grand Slam winners recieve 2,000 ATP points and Olympic Gold medalists earn 750?
You put your head in the sand. His argument is not coherent.
Your debating skills need a lot of work mate. Just shouting that you are right never made a compelling argument.
Re your question in bold - the answer is that that that this is the number of points the ATP deemed should be allocated to winning the OG. If you think it in any way reflects the level of esteem in which OG is held then you need to speak to Novak and ask him why it was one of his top 2 priorities for the year and why he destroyed every racket in in his bag after losing to Murray. While you're there, have a word with Roger and ask him how many times he's cried after winning a slam semi.
Now - I believe I've answered every question you've asked - how about you return the courtesy and adress the question you've been been ignoring to date:
Why did novak prioritise OG over AO, Wimby and USO? The guy who you seem to support has made public statements that appear to be completely at odds with your position. Is Novak also incoherent?
Andy has won 2 masters every year since 2008. Surely that means he's gonna win Paris and WTF. He has to, to get the tradition going. Although Olympics is a bit like a master, so just one of the 2 will do!!
You are aware that the WTF is NOT a Masters series 100 equalivent. It is the fifth biggest event of the year, and only one step behind a slam event in points and prestiege.
If you think Novak's opinion in any way reflects the level of esteem in which Olympics are held then you need to speak to ATP and ask them why was it decided to award just 750 points for Olimpic gold medalist in contrast to 2,000 points that earn Grand Slam winners.
Stop thinking about points. The Olympics could be worth no pts, which it always was before 2004, and it would still bigger than a 250 event for example. The Olympics is not as important pts wise, but it is important to the players because they are playing for their COUNTRY. After all, why should a player's opinion matter? He's only playing in the damn tournament. :roll:
It's not just Novak's opinion though is it. Roger cried after winning his semi, Delpo said winning Bronze was on a par with winning the USO, Murray bounced around the court like Zebedee after winning the gold (in contrast to his reaction to winning his 1st slam), the French guys in the doubles were going absolutely mental when they won their medal.
Six big prizes up for grabs - if Murray wins the WTF he'll have won 3 of them. Whether that is enough to make him POTY is moot - as you are so inelegantly demonstrating - but waving your arms around and saying 'no, i'm right' is a truly incoherent argument.
You are seriously delusional if you consider their opinion more relevant than that of ATP.
There are 4 big tournaments (ie Grand Slams).
I mentioned several times the reason why I'm right.
I'll just use the Ricky Bobby logic on all this. All 4 top players split the GS this year, but who cares if Novak had slightly better results than Murray, after all, "if you're not first you're last." If Novak had won a 2nd slam, I'd give him the POTY without question, but don't pretend like it's not debatable or that only the slams truly matter. As I said, they all won 1 slam each, and again "if you're not first you're last."
I think he's just sore that Murray beat his boy in straights in one of Nole's 2 target events for the year.
The funny thing is that I've never done anything other than agreed with him that Nole is in pole position for POTY - it's also funny that he's gone from 'It's about the slams + MS wins + winning %' to 'it's just about the slams'.
Debater of the year he ain't.
Separate names with a comma.