Its official now, Novak is the back to back world #1

It has been an up and down year for Novak, having both lost and regained the number 1 ranking within the last few months. Some close matches and unfavorable circumstances went against him this year where in 2011 he was not having these issues. But with all that being said he still won a slam and outpaced all of his nearest rivals in points. And by the end of the year he is pretty fit and playing probably the best tennis of the season. He now has made the semis of the last 8 straight tournaments and 14 of the 15 tournaments he entered this year with his only early exit being on Ian Tiriac's dodgy clay court in the quarters. We have also seen him accomplish feats of fighting back with his back up against the wall and cementing his reputation as the hardest player to serve out a grandslam match on.

And going into next season Djokovic have to be optimistic as he seems to be again building momentum at the tale end of the year and should be poised for greater success in 2013. He went 6-8 against his biggest rivals with a mid season slump against them and I am sure for next year he will be looking to correct that number. All in all a great year anyway you slice it and I am sure we will see a better version of Djokovic in 2013 if injuries are permitting. Novak now is one of only 9 players in the history of the game to repeat as world #1 in back to back years since the founding of th ATP ranking system. Joining an elite club with Borg, Connors, Lendl, Edberg, Sampras, Hewitt, Mcenroe, Federer and now Djokovic.

Great thread, Socal.
Congrats to all Djokovic fans (well nearly all)

He's been really consistent this year, can't deny that. Not as good as 2011, but still pretty damn good.

Thanks a bunch IMBL what has been most impressive for me is how completly untouchable he has been for the rest of the guys on the ATP tour outside of the top 4. He has one loss to Isner basically in a match that he should have won and that is the only legitimate loss he has had to a non big 4 member this year.

Well deserved, so consistent throughout 2012. 2011 was always going to be impossible to match

Well done Nole

I thought he was in "crisis" a couple of months ago, according to a few of the more knowledgeable scribes on this forum

I don't think Djoko was ever in a crisis as such, but I do remember writing a thread saying his success in 2011 was a one-off.
But let's be fair here, it's practically impossible for him to repeat it this year. He's been very consistent, won a slam, and finished the year number 1, so credit to him for that.

banbrotam wrote:Well done Nole

I thought he was in "crisis" a couple of months ago, according to a few of the more knowledgeable scribes on this forum

I don't know if he was in crisis banbro but I certainly think that he did have a bit of mid season slump. I might be one of those self described scribes myself, but I take exception to the knowledgable portion of your post I like to think of myself as more of tennis savant, of the non-idiot variety of course.

It Must Be Love wrote:I don't think Djoko was ever in a crisis as such, but I do remember writing a thread saying his success in 2011 was a one-off.
But let's be fair here, it's practically impossible for him to repeat it this year. He's been very consistent, won a slam, and finished the year number 1, so credit to him for that.

Do you guys think he is most likely to finish 2013 as #1, to me he looks most likely in that respect of the current field in question.

Yes, it looks likely.
It's between Murray and Djoko for me on that front, although on clay I think Murray may drop points so Djoko should do it.

I remember finding it ridiculous that people were saying he was in crisis. He was always reaching semis or finals, beating virtually the whole tour with ease, and only losing very tight matches against world class players. Some crisis!

I'm glad his form has picked up, just so it gets rid of that ridiculous suggestion that he was on a slippery slope to mediocrity. Such consistency deserves the no.1 ranking. Federer and Murray may have stole a few of the headlines with some box office successes, but week in week out Novak has been the most consistent. Congrats to him.

And yes, I think Novak will finish 2013 as number 1. Hard courts could be close between Novak and Murray, and Murray edges it on grass for me.... But Novak is far more accomplished on the dirt and therefore I think he might be quite a bit ahead of him by the end of next year. I think it would be too soon for Rafa personally, and though Roger might be a bit closer than some say I think Novak is the man.

It's a hell of a thing, killing a man...no, wait that's Clint Eastwood.

It's a hell of a thing being YE No 1. It is, after all, the best tennis player on the entire planet for the year. Whoever gets it deserves great credit, and to do it two years running is (pardon the pun) doubley difficult.

Djokvic's consistency against lower ranked players has been hard to match. He also ended up with a slam and 3 masters, I don't think anyone else beat that.

I see him as no 1 because of his consistent, reliable groundstrokes on both sides, and mental strength.

Yes henman bill that is how I see it as well, in my opinion if you look at all surfaces he is the best baseliner in the game and that should serve him well in this new modern game. I also feel like his serve is getting better his numbers have gone up and up on the serve since the start of the season.

It's a year to be proud of but also rather an odd year.

It's not inconceivable that he could end up around 2000 points clear at the end of the year. That suggests a level of dominance. To put it another context, if he can win another 1000 pts across Paris and WTF, he will equal Nadal's points haul from his 3-slam 2010! The numbers are quite remarkable in that respect.

And yet, it hasn't "felt" like dominance. Indeed, the biggest stories of the year have probably involved other players - Murray winning Olympics and his first slam, Fed grabbing number 17, Rafa breaking Borg's record. It's only now the season is drawing to a close that Novak's 2012 is coming into focus and into attention.

It's all the more impressive because there was a chunk of the season where he lost a bit of form and took some huge disappointments. In the space of a couple of months he lost his chance to hold all 4 slams, lost his favourite title (Wimbledon) and missed his goal to win an Olympic gold.

And yet he fought back. Canada (W), Cincy (RU), US Open (RU), Beijing (W), Shanghai (W) is a great sequence of results that have added luster to a season that was threatening to fall apart. He's really shown some toughness after a difficult summer.

My final assessment? 12,000+ pts is fantastic. 5 titles (1 slam, 3 masters, 1 500) is excellent but could have been so much better.

One final comment and then I'll shut up. In two season, Novak has won eight TMS and still has one left to play. That's remarkable. That's the same as Andy's career total!

Also Murdoch he has won 7 of 9 masters on tour, that is one more than Fed and Nadal. And he has won shanghai in both its incarnations as a masters event and as the year end masters cup. This shows his ability to play on all the surfaces and conditions and to be the best. He lost to Nadal on clay, and Roger on grass and those two losses particularly the loss to Nadal at the french I think stayed with him for a while. And who could blame him with all he was playing for.

socal1976 wrote:Also Murdoch he has won 7 of 9 masters on tour

There has to be a fair chance of him eventually winning all 9. He's made the Cincy final 4 times and the question marks over Nadal may make Monte Carlo not quite the lock down it has always been.

Has anyone ever completed the career "Masters Slam"?

HM Murdoch wrote:

socal1976 wrote:Also Murdoch he has won 7 of 9 masters on tour

There has to be a fair chance of him eventually winning all 9. He's made the Cincy final 4 times and the question marks over Nadal may make Monte Carlo not quite the lock down it has always been.

Has anyone ever completed the career "Masters Slam"?

Pretty sure not. Fed and Djoko have reached the final of all 9. Fed, I think, has also won 7 different Masters, but one of them is now defunct (Hamburg).

Thanks JHM, good knowledge.

It seems then that a career "Masters Slam" (is there an official phrase for this?!), whilst not as prestigious as a career Grand Slam, is statistically more difficult! Maybe I shouldn't be so confident!

HM Murdoch wrote:

socal1976 wrote:Also Murdoch he has won 7 of 9 masters on tour

There has to be a fair chance of him eventually winning all 9. He's made the Cincy final 4 times and the question marks over Nadal may make Monte Carlo not quite the lock down it has always been.

Has anyone ever completed the career "Masters Slam"?

Probably not, however the problem is that they keep adding and changing masters so having won Hamburg, that one doesn't count for fed and Nadal towards a masters slam because it no longer exists. But I don't think anyone has ever completed a master's set. That would be an extremely impressive accomplishment to win all 9 masters on tour at least once. I think Novak has a very good shot at both Monte Carlo and Cincy, lets remember he wasn't at his best and had some serious family issues arond the time of Monte Carlo.

I was there at the O2 after the Federer-Tipsarevic match for the year end no 1 presentation. It was a very poorly organised presentation that did no justice to this important award, and he didn't go around waving the trophy to all sides enough either. He also won a humanitarian award for charity work.

I also noticed that while the presentation was going on, I could see into the TV studio and see they didn't appear to be showing it live.

They showed it live on sky (I think it was sky I was watching yesterday). BBC cut away from Fed back to the studio today - he was shown walking onto court and shaking hands and then cut back once. (The Murray/Djokovic match went on too long for Sky to do much post match)

I think the BBC missed a bit of a trick - it is the end of year championships - the championship of champions as it were and awards to popular players and to the No 1 should be shown to really showcase the sport and the tournament.

Would there have been more fanfare had it been Federer or Nadal?

Some confusion here perhaps.

The awards to Novak were shown live by the Beeb as they were being presented, and they also carried his (short but very good) acceptance speech. No complaints on that really.

In the case of the Federer awards, there was (as tp mentions) the merest glimpse of Fed coming onto court, and then - instead of seeing the actual presentation + speech - we were treated to more studio waffle from Sue B. She was asking Henman to comment on the Murray/Djoko match just finished, which he did in a perfectly reasonable, albeit unexciting, manner. But Sue herself really becomes more lazy and tiresome with every appearance, trotting out inane questions and the same old banalities over & over again (one of my 'favourites' being "he'll be wanting to win this opening set, surely .....")

banbrotam wrote:Well done Nole

I thought he was in "crisis" a couple of months ago, according to a few of the more knowledgeable scribes on this forum

You mean the ones trying to make out Federer was only back at #1 because of Noles "slump"?

Idiots. I couldn't agree with you more.

bogbrush wrote:

banbrotam wrote:Well done Nole

I thought he was in "crisis" a couple of months ago, according to a few of the more knowledgeable scribes on this forum

You mean the ones trying to make out Federer was only back at #1 because of Noles "slump"?

Idiots. I couldn't agree with you more.

This smugness would be more tolerable if anyone actually had said Fed only got back to number 1 because of a slump from Nole.

There are plenty of real opinions on this forum for you to try to counter, you don't have to make up imaginary ones.

Oh no, nobody has ever suggested Nole slumped in the Summer. No way, certainly not.

bogbrush wrote:Idiots.

Given I expressed an opinion in this direction, thanks

No BB, federer didn't regain the number 1 because Novak slumped, a crucial reason that he did regain the number 1 was because Novak tore a muscle in his back. The same thing that helped him regain the number 1 in 09 when Nadal went down. Fed still had to occupy the number 2 spot to benefit from those injuries but pointing out the truth is no basis for ridicule.

Socal, welcome back

The problem with this line of thinking is that it applies to anyone; Federers Glandular Fever, Nadals knees; the list is endless, and by that measure everything that's happened can be devalued.

That's why drawing attention to one instance as if its special is so wrong.

socal1976 wrote:No BB, federer didn't regain the number 1 because Novak slumped, a crucial reason that he did regain the number 1 was because Novak tore a muscle in his back. The same thing that helped him regain the number 1 in 09 when Nadal went down. Fed still had to occupy the number 2 spot to benefit from those injuries but pointing out the truth is no basis for ridicule.

Personally this topic does indeed interest me, but what I must say is the phrase:
'He doesn't deserve to be number 1 in the rankings' is simply not true, in any case.
To get to number 1 in the rankings you must accumulate more ranking points than any other player. Simple. If you do that you 'deserve' the ranking, unless the ATP miscalculates your points which is very unlikely.

However being 'number 1 in the ranking' is not equivalent to being 'the best player in the world over the last 12 months.' They are different.
For the former category we add up the points, and the players who has more deserves more, simple. For the latter we can consider other factors such as injuries, illnesses etc.

bogbrush wrote:The problem with this line of thinking is that it applies to anyone; Federers Glandular Fever, Nadals knees; the list is endless, and by that measure everything that's happened can be devalued.

That's why drawing attention to one instance as if its special is so wrong.

Well when looking at one instance we can consider the factor behind it, we can do with as many occasions as we like.
For example we can see the Djokovic vs Federer SF AO 2008 may have had a big influence from an external factor (eg Fed's mono) which can be seen as 'fortune' for Djokovic, compared to USO F 2007, where there was no real external factor.
The impact the factor plays will always remain subjective.

It Must Be Love wrote:

socal1976 wrote:No BB, federer didn't regain the number 1 because Novak slumped, a crucial reason that he did regain the number 1 was because Novak tore a muscle in his back. The same thing that helped him regain the number 1 in 09 when Nadal went down. Fed still had to occupy the number 2 spot to benefit from those injuries but pointing out the truth is no basis for ridicule.

Personally this topic does indeed interest me, but what I must say is the phrase:
'He doesn't deserve to be number 1 in the rankings' is simply not true, in any case.
To get to number 1 in the rankings you must accumulate more ranking points than any other player. Simple. If you do that you 'deserve' the ranking, unless the ATP miscalculates your points which is very unlikely.

However being 'number 1 in the ranking' is not equivalent to being 'the best player in the world over the last 12 months.' They are different.
For the former category we add up the points, and the players who has more deserves more, simple. For the latter we can consider other factors such as injuries, illnesses etc.

And lose all track of reality,shrouded in subjectivity and bias.

If the points are marginal there's a case for looking closer but when it's been clear cut there's no such argument.

The advantage of the points is that they reflect reality; what really happened, not what people imagine might have happened if such and such had been different.

lydian wrote:

bogbrush wrote:Idiots.

Given I expressed an opinion in this direction, thanks

Sorry about that, you're not an idiot.

My complaint is withwho tried to claim Djokovic was in a slump when he went to #2 but now contradict themselves,

Ok BB, fair enough

I've gone back a few years, to when Borg retired, and found that ever since then every No 1, starting with McEnroe (lucky that Borg retired) didn't really deserve to be No 1. There was always a mitigating circumstance.
Same for slams - every one of them is asterisked for one reason or another.
It's a funny old game. No-one really deserves any of the success they get.

Julius

btw Julius without misquoting me, can you go back and point out where exactly I said anyone didn't 'deserve' their success.
In-fact @ 1:44 did I not say that whoever is number 1 in the ranking deserves it?

IMBL what makes you think I was referring to any specific point by yourself or anyone?

lol who were you referring to then Julius

Any poster who fails to see the bigger picture or who thinks that an 'if' constitutes a given.

Who's that

Plenty over the years!

bogbrush wrote:My complaint is with who tried to claim Djokovic was in a slump when he went to #2 but now contradict themselves,

Yes but who are these idiots? A lot of us said he looked below his best and short on confidence for a chunk of the season, including this guy:

bogbrush wrote:My guess is that the demands of having a stellar year are telling, and that the disappointment of the French Open may still weigh heavily, when he had the opportunity to do something even his peers couldn't. Well it's even worse now that Wimbledon has gone too; putting himself back in that position (leadership tennis) seems incredibly remote now.

bogbrush wrote:That (losing the FO final) shook Novaks confidence and by dashing his Grand Slam dreams set him back.

If this is the rational view, in what ways does the view of the idiots differ?

This is a moment you have all been waiting for, get ready to quote socal and bookmark this I know this confession will be source of enjoyement. If believing that Novak had a mid season slump means that you are an idiot, well then I am an idiot as well. It is clear the man has had major family issues this year and the dissapointment of that RG loss stayed with him for a while. If you are watching the current Djoko who has won two tournaments in China and has now scored back to back wins over murray with the Djoko who was oddly muted in his loss to Rog at wimby and his subsequent defeats at the olympics. During that period I think he went on an 0-6 streak against the top 4. So there is nothing illogical or idiotic about saying the guy was off color because of the RG loss and personal issues for a couple of months. When he is on song he is the best he has proven that now for 2 years running.

It Must Be Love wrote:

socal1976 wrote:No BB, federer didn't regain the number 1 because Novak slumped, a crucial reason that he did regain the number 1 was because Novak tore a muscle in his back. The same thing that helped him regain the number 1 in 09 when Nadal went down. Fed still had to occupy the number 2 spot to benefit from those injuries but pointing out the truth is no basis for ridicule.

Personally this topic does indeed interest me, but what I must say is the phrase:
'He doesn't deserve to be number 1 in the rankings' is simply not true, in any case.
To get to number 1 in the rankings you must accumulate more ranking points than any other player. Simple. If you do that you 'deserve' the ranking, unless the ATP miscalculates your points which is very unlikely.

However being 'number 1 in the ranking' is not equivalent to being 'the best player in the world over the last 12 months.' They are different.
For the former category we add up the points, and the players who has more deserves more, simple. For the latter we can consider other factors such as injuries, illnesses etc.

I never said Fed didn't deserve the number 1, but his deserving the number 1 doesn't mean mentioning the injuries of his two closest rivals as a factor in his ascent is anything but stating the obvious. Many fed fans did claim that Novak's 08 win at the AO was tainted because fed had mono, some how if Roger isn't 100 percent that slam counted but not really in the minds of many critics that I had ongoing discussions with. But the #1 is different than a good draw at a slam, which a lot of slam winners benefit from, if one of your main rivals is hobbled or both it is going to give the healthier guy a big edge week to week in gaining points. But in NO WAY DOES THAT MEAN FED DOESN'T DESERVE IT, YES HE HAD TO BE HOT ON THE HEELS AND ACTUALLY WIN THE TITLES TO GET THERE. Great accomplishment nonethless by Fed I think maybe his most impressive accomplishment because of his age. But at the same time stating the obvious about a crucial factor in his rise is just telling the whole story.

It Must Be Love wrote:Socal, welcome back

Thanks again IMBL, busy as a bee with my work schedule lately building is bouncing back in southern california next year big time and Socal has got to get his and prepare for next year. Plus made a few phone calls for the man, the Rock obama. Had to keep the Alabama Republican stupid types out of the whitehouse.

By the way Hussayn Obama translated into farsi literally comes out to "Hussayn he is with us". To shiites iranians Obama's name is like a compliment to their most sacred martyr. Really weird but the people over there really put stock in these kind of signs from god type of stuff. My mom loves Obama almost as much as her own grandchildren.

Careful Socal, that's some dangerous talk you are saying in these quarters!

While it's perfectly acceptable to observe that Fed has gone of the boil since Cincy, it's not very popular to suggest that Novak or Rafa can have periods of poor form. That apparently diminishes the achievements of other players.

HM Murdoch wrote:Careful Socal, that's some dangerous talk you are saying in these quarters!

While it's perfectly acceptable to observe that Fed has gone of the boil since Cincy, it's not very popular to suggest that Novak or Rafa can have periods of poor form. That apparently diminishes the achievements of other players.

Or that Federer in particular benefits in anyway from an injury to an opponent. This double standard exists for fed in 100 situations and you know it drives me crazy. Novak does something spectacular and highlight reel and it is called lucky. Fed hits a great shot it is almost like a collective orgasm takes place in describing all the different shades of spectacular that Roger encompasses. Same shot from djokovic, oh that was lucky. It is just funny how many times he gets lucky and hits the lines on match and set points. Other types of double standards also exist of course the current era is nothing special but the obviously softer period of the early to mid 2000s was not weaker in anyway because well fed was dominating. People who often denigrate Novak and Nadal the most seem to take exception with pointing out things like injuries or slumps on their part as somehow denigrating Roger's accomplishments. Many of these double standards exist in favor of the Rog and frankly it drives me nuts that people don't see it or acknowledge it. Great post murdoch.