Rankings

Only a couple of months ago Fed was falling into the clutches of David Ferrer and Djokovic/Nadal were gone from sight. Now this;

1 Djokovic, Novak (SRB) 13,675
2 Nadal, Rafael (ESP) 9,575
3 Federer, Roger (SUI) 8,170
4 Murray, Andy (GBR) 7,380

Nole is still miles away but of course he now has to defend shedloads right through until the next USO and is looking a bit wounded. A lot will depend on whether he recovers. However Nadal is very much in reach.

It's a big, big turnaround and if Federer can summon up the force maybe he really can get those few weeks needed to pass Sampras.

'falling into the clutches of David Ferrer'



I had images of a witch like creature resembling Ferru with long hair and long, tapered fingers outstretched

Catching Nadal would be a good start from the draws point of view but Nadal has even more points he can gain at the AO than Fed.

It's a tremendous end to his year but let's be realistic in accepting that once you're in your thirties the prospects of a slide down the rankings (whether gentle or otherwise) are statistically far more likely than a climb upwards.

Personally l'm impressed by the fact that Fed is not only still top 3/4 but also comfortably so, going into 2012. As for regaining number one .....well that seems to me a bridge too far, even with his remarkable abilities. I'm well aware that Agassi clawed his way back to the top spot very late in his career after having slipped way down, out of the top 100 even ; but I remember thinking at the time that it was an almost surreal development, unlikely ever to recur .....

But this is Federer and I am saying unlikely, as opposed to impossible .....

For the Aussie Open, a lot depends on how Djokovic performs but I'm not sure I really have Nadal down as a contender for it. It is true that he's won the Aussie Open, but his record is weaker there and if I was going to put a bet on it, I'd put a bet that Fed gets further than Nadal. For Fed to really stand a chance of catching Djokovic, he needs to win the Aussie Open, win either Miami or Indian Wells and either Rome or Madrid and defend his RG final points. Even then I'm still not sure. Any change at the top won't happen until after Wimbledon in my view.

If I'm correct, Djokovic become No.1 after winning Wimbledon this year, in 2010, Nadal became No.1 just before Wimbledon (I think), in 2009, Federer became No.1 (again) after winning Wimbledon and in 2008 Nadal become No.1 after winning Wimbledon. So in the last 3 out of 4 years, the change of No.1 has come after Wimbledon (which makes sense if you think about it with RG & Wimbledon placed close together in the calendar, not mentioning the 3 clay court masters in the month prior to RG).

I think there's a good chance of Fed displacing Nadal as No.2 if he wins the Aussie Open and does well in Miami/IW but to become No.1 will require he wins either the French or Wimbledon as well as being the finalist in the other, quite a tall order but not as difficult as it appears....because if he takes the points he will deprive either Djokovic or Nadal of those points which means he could do it...but there won't be a change for No.2 for probably 3/4 months and for No.1 for 7/8 months.

Good stuff there luciusmann, interesting take on what lies ahead.

We focus so much now on the big four (understandably after 2011 happenings) but next year one of the Slams could perhaps finally go to a 'break-through' name...... Could it ....??

Ok, I'm struggling to think of who that might be too

lusciusman - rafa became no1 in 2008 after beating lappenti i believe at Cincinnati as federer went out very early.
I wish he can get to no1 but i just cannot see it unfortunately. IMO it just requires such a monumental effort, something perhaps beyond feds, though a slam is a definite possibility. It will be interesting to see if he is paired in rafa's or novak's side of the draw. IM excited already!!!

We are forgetting an important factor, Olympics in 2012 @W.

It is interesting to contemplate beating Sampras's 286 weeks at #1, but IMVHO, there are more important ones, like trying to get to 20 slams (or close to 20), before retirement, or getting another FO, or an Olympic Gold.

I agree LuvSports, it would be pretty difficult for Fed to get to No.1. A lot depends on who the points go to, if they go to either Nadal or Murray that actually helps Fed (although Fed still needs to pick up points himself). Thanks for the correction btw (I wasn't sure if it was directly after or a bit later on). Just remember, Djokovic has to defend the following points all before the the French Open:

Aussie Open: 2, 000
Miami: 1, 000
IW: 1, 000
Madrid: 1, 000
Rome: 1, 000

That's 6, 000 in total and even if there's a good chance he can hang onto 50 to 66% it's who those other 3, 000 to 2, 000 go to that's crucial. If it goes straight to Nadal (possible, in previous years it's gone to the No.2) then he becomes No.1, if directly to Fed, then he would. Simply put, it's unlikely Djokovic will just slump and the points will all directly go to Nadal or Federer, which is why I think it will be around RG and Wimbledon that we will see movement for the No.1 position (if any), it could be Nadal, or it could be Fed.

Fortunately for Fed, 3, 700 of his points are now locked in till next September (almost half of all his points) which gives him an excellent position to attack for No.1. Also, Nadal has to also defend runner up positions in 4 of the masters which Djokovic won (plus Monte Carlo & Aussie, a total of 3, 760 for Nadal). For Fed, the number is 1, 890. So prior to the French Open, in the major tournaments (Aussie plus the 4 Masters) the top 3 have to defend:

6, 000 for Djokovic
3, 760 for Nadal
1, 890 for Federer

It's pretty clear for anyone to see that it's easiest for Fed to pick up points because he has half the number of Nadal's and just a third of Djokovic's. Djokovic can only go down, he can't win any extra points and Nadal can win some extra but is capped at 6, 000. Fed is likely to gain but whether it's enough for No.1 is going to depend a lot on the Aussie Open and the subsequent masters.

BTW lags72, if any of the grand slams go to anyone other than the top three, that disproportionately helps Federer recover the No.1 position!

The simple reason is that all four of the grand slams are owned by Nadal/Djokovic so they would lose many points if they didn't retain their titles. As Fed has no grand slam titles currently, he can't lose as many. The effect of someone else winning one of the grand slams or more would be to level the playing field by cutting down Djokovic and Nadal but not particularly cutting Fed down. So actually, that increases Fed's chances of recovering No.1! Strange but true, not that I'll be complaining (another record for Fed would further cement his legacy, but sure Fed would much prefer another slam or two)!

luciusmann wrote:BTW lags72, if any of the grand slams go to anyone other than the top three, that disproportionately helps Federer recover the No.1 position!

The simple reason is that all four of the grand slams are owned by Nadal/Djokovic so they would lose many points if they didn't retain their titles. As Fed has no grand slam titles currently, he can't lose as many. The effect of someone else winning one of the grand slams or more would be to level the playing field by cutting down Djokovic and Nadal but not particularly cutting Fed down. So actually, that increases Fed's chances of recovering No.1! Strange but true, not that I'll be complaining (another record for Fed would further cement his legacy, but sure Fed would much prefer another slam or two)!

Now Fed fans will back Murray and Del Po right , yea a lot depends on AO, if Fed can win it and win one of the masters, he could make up to 2000 + points, which would push him above 10K, and if Djoko fails to qualify for the finals in both of them, then he lose close to 2k points, which means the difference would be less than 1k, and that will be neutralized in clay season, so its gonna be interesting and I guess there will be massive fluctuations among the three in replacing each other as no.1.

I guess Nadal will become no.1 with Nole losing lot of points and Fed will over take Nadal by the end of RG or Wimbledon, and Nole will replace Rafa as no.2 if he kick starts, interesting to see what will Murray add to it.

Excellent point at the end there luciusmann.

I don't say Fed getting #1 is likely. I think it's remote. But if we target a race to the USO he now has a very good lead. If he could somehow tread water with the others (and winning a Slam or two would be a big step in that direction) then he'd have it.
Combine that with Tsonga/Berdy etc coming through and it could happen.

The other thing we don't know yet is what state Djokovic is in; I still can't work out why he was so bad at the WTF - the shoulder looked fine and he'd had time off. If he is in any way impaired then the intensity at the top would hurt him. That's not a route to the top for Fed I'd like to see, but there you go.

This very big end of year has altered the dynamics at the top for sure.

Well it's very simple. Since end of USO, Fed has accumulated 3000pts. Murray 1500, Djoko and Nadal less than 500 each. So Fed has a good head start and he just nees to do as well as the top 2 top 3 or even a bit less and he can regain his number 1 spot, with post USO being his best chance.

Tenez wrote:Well it's very simple. Since end of USO, Fed has accumulated 3000pts. Murray 1500, Djoko and Nadal less than 500 each. So Fed has a good head start and he just needs to do as well as the top 2 top 3 or even a bit less and he can regain his number 1 spot, with post USO being his best chance.

That's precisely my point. The key will be (i) winning a Slam and not falling before the semis, and (ii) picking and choosing Masters events to go at and win - the points on offer for a losing semi at a Masters aren't worth the cost so imo he should thin out the clay season for himself, treat it as a warm up programme for RG and hope to do well in at least one, but make a real effort at Indian Wells and/or Miami.

Above all else he must stay fit and guard that back.

As others have said, he could really do with someone else coming through to take a Slam or two if he can't do it himself, and deprive Nadal & Djokovic of the glut of points they get there.

BB,

read his presser post match yesterday. i have posted the link to it. he makes some good points about picking and choosing his events

bogbrush wrote:As others have said, he could really do with someone else coming through to take a Slam or two if he can't do it himself, and deprive Nadal & Djokovic of the glut of points they get there.

This is the key. He woudl need guys like Delpo and others to cut the job down for him...even if at his expense as well.

I feel like a few can handle Nadal now (and I expect Delpo to show just that this weekend) but Djoko will be the big question mark. Can he take off and improve faster than teh others as he did in 11 or will he feel the pressure of having so much to defend?

The last few years have told us that form in October-November can shed very little light on form in the crucial period of the season where the heaviest points and biggest prizes are won from April to August/Sept. For eample with the exception only of 2009 that is when Nadal times his optimum form.

I maintain that Aus Open 2012 is looking like Fed's best chance of picking up a slam - especially given the high that he must be feeling now.

The earlier posting about Agassi getting back to number one is illuminating. A surprised Andre had to be told he was numero uno again and said that, yes, it was nice, but it was not his priority.
His priority was winning Slams and, if he couldn't do that, being still good enough for someone to have to play a very fine match to beat him. Thus resolved, he gave a wonderful late-career account of himself, picking and choosing carefully his tournaments and trying to peak for the big ones.
So although number one would be "nice" for Fed, a slam or two more would be better.

I think it's higly unlikely that Fed will regain the number 1 spot.

From his point of view the only place where he can pick up substantial points is the period bewteen the start of the clay season and up until the USO. That was his worst patch this year. Prior to that he had reached at least the semi-final in every tournament: AUS, DUbai, IW, Miami. So not many points to pick up at the start of the season, unless of course he manages to win in AUS.

However, as others have alluded to, Novak and Rafa could drop a substantial number of points in the early part of the season.

WRT slams, I'm unfortunately not so hopeful.

Fed traditionally plays well on the indoor circuit, so I don't think his recent results are a harbinger of future good results. Infact, I thought he was pretty much average in this indoor season, bar a couple of matches (Berdy in Paris and Nadal in London, were he was oustanding). He was pretty good in Basle too, but the competition wasn't as tough.

I found it quite concerning that Roger mentioned that he was exhausted after the final against Tsonga. It could just be because of the long indoor season that he's played but it makes you wonder if, at this age, he has the stamina to make it through two weeks of Bo5.

I really hope he knuckles down and works had on his conditioning during the off season. If he can play as well next year in AUS as he did this year then he will be very tough to beat. It took Novak, playing at his absolute best (and I do believe that Novak played his very best tennis of the year at the AUS open) to beat Fed. I'd be surprised to see Novak repeating that sort of form - although it can't be discounted.

sirfredperry wrote:
His priority was winning Slams and, if he couldn't do that, being still good enough for someone to have to play a very fine match to beat him. Thus resolved, he gave a wonderful late-career account of himself, picking and choosing carefully his tournaments and trying to peak for the big ones.
So although number one would be "nice" for Fed, a slam or two more would be better.

Yes true and I woudl expect Federer to say the same had he either beaten Pete's number 1 week record or had he been far from it (like Agassi was at the time). Federer is just one week away, and I think he cares about that to some extend. Now would he trade that against another future slam? I don't know. 2 certainly not...I'd think.

I dont think Fed ever had the problem in playing best of five. If nole struggles to recover till oz open then there is every chance that fed will go as a fav in that slam.And like Emancipator said that winning aus open will put him in a good place to get the no. 1 back atleast for a week

laverfan wrote:We are forgetting an important factor, Olympics in 2012 @W.

It is interesting to contemplate beating Sampras's 286 weeks at #1, but IMVHO, there are more important ones, like trying to get to 20 slams (or close to 20), before retirement, or getting another FO, or an Olympic Gold.

The inclusion of the Olympics into the 2012 schedule throws a spanner in the works that maybe the wise head of Federer might be able to exploit.

Personally I don't agree that professional tennis should be included in the Olympics, it is just another money-grabbing exercise overbloating the Olympics into the professional behemoth it has become. Other less professional sports with significantly less money have had to be ejected from the Olympics to include the professional sports with their millionaire star system. The Olympics of today is not the same as the Olympics of De Coubertin's day. Professional tennis out, bring back the tug of war and the egg and spoon race.