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

First topic message reminder :

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.

It feels like tomorrow's match should decide the year end ranking for me.

They have both won 1 slam and 3 masters and Federer leads 6-5 in total tournament wins. The head to head this year is 2-2 (1-1 in slams) so it's amazing to see Djokovic just over 2,000 points clear going into tomorrow's match.

He's done it by being more consistent in not only winning tournaments but reaching finals. At slam level Djokovic has W-F-S-F compared to S-S-W-Q for Federer, three slam final compared to only 1 (and four semis compared to only 3).

Also, at Masters level, while they took 3 each, Djokovic added 3 finals, but Federer added no finals.

So I guess Djokovic is the deserved no 1 if he loses tomorrow, just about, although it will be a bit of a grey area whereas it will be far more cut and dried if Djokovic wins.

Henman Bill wrote:So I guess Djokovic is the deserved no 1 if he loses tomorrow, just about, although it will be a bit of a grey area whereas it will be far more cut and dried if Djokovic wins.

I disagree there - Djoko is already the deserved Y/E No 1, regardless of what happens tomorrow. The points difference shows that.

Permutations for Australian Open:

Djokovic currently leads by 1955 however his extra win at the group stages should extend that to 2155. If he wins tomorrow that's 2655, if he loses 1655.

IF DJOKOVIC WINS WORLD TOUR FINALS
That 2655 lead going into the AO would reduce to 1375 when his 2000 points drop off and Federer's 720 drop off.
That means that if Federer fails to win the AO, Djokovic will be #1 after the Australian open, (even if he loses in the first round and Federer reaches the final).
Also, if Djokovic reaches the semi final, he will be #1 after the Australian open even if Federer wins it.
So Federer would have to win the AO and Djokovic fail to make the semi.

IF FEDERER WINS WORLD TOUR FINALS
That 1655 lead would reduce to 375 when his 2000 points drop off and Federer's 720 drop off at the AO.
That means that if Federer wins the AO, he would be guaranteed #1.
Djokovic would have to win the AO to guarantee #1.
A lot more complicated permutations would exist regarding semis, quarters, finals etc. It would be all to play for.

So - a win for Federer tomorrow puts #1 totally in play at the Australian Open. However a win for Djokovic means he could well have it locked up for a while yet. A win for Djokovic tomorrow and he could easily end up as a slamless no 1 after the AO. (Slamless in terms of slams held at the time.)

I've ignored countables issue and the tournaments before the AO which could change the picture as well, just to give a broad look at the stiuation for now.

There are only 2 players that can be #1 after the Australian Open.

I'm very much with JHM on this.

Win or lose tomorrow night (and it's a very big title no doubt, second only to the Slams but no 'lower tier' early opponents or byes as in Masters) then it takes away nothing from Djokovic's achievement in ending the year as the best player of the 2012 tour.

A defeat might briefly leave him a tad deflated, but the record books will always show him as Y/E Number One. He will rightly take much pride in that, having got there on merit alone.

HB : Thanks for the early 2013 points analysis

HM Murdoch wrote:

bogbrush wrote:

socal1976 wrote:
Also he had a poor and disjointed clay court season due to the death of his grandfather and a dodgey clay court in Madrid, then the loss to nadal at th French just stuck with him for a while. These players aren't robots, even a fearsome competitor like Djoko can sometimes take awhile to recover from a tough slam final loss. Especially with all Djoko had riding on it. His performances were bizarre during that mid season just different both to the way he played at the start of the season and to the way he is playing now.

See, this is the problem in a nutshell.

The Wimbledon defeat, dismissed as attributable to to nebulous cause such as the death of a venerable family member months ago, a slippy court that caught some out and a final loss to Nadal at RG (hadn't someone lse recovered from that a few times......?)

But now it's all ok again and we can pretend those defeats weren't caused on the court because the opponent was superior.

Events seem to be malleable; only the conclusion is solid.

No BB, this is the problem in a nutshell. You take the assertion that Novak wasn't at his best mid-season and construe that as saying that's the only reason Fed won. Here's what we were actually saying:

socal1976 wrote:Well it wasn't meant to be. Roger played great really deserved it. Served so beautifully and played the big points well. Novak did the one thing that he couldn't do to win the match he played sloppy with his forehand behind his serve and usually when he gets broken that is the main issue and it was again today.

socal1976 wrote:it was always going to be tough if Fed served that well. Good performance by him he really has deserved this resurgence. I think it is clear that Annacone has made a big difference in helping keep Fed at the top.

HM Murdoch wrote: Having looked at the match stats, they are surprisingly close but anyone who watched it knows that this was not a close match. Apart from a couple of games, this was on Roger’s racquet from start to finish. Roger was full of attacking intent but I’m struggling to describe Novak’s game.

HM Murdoch wrote:Losses to Rafa at Rome & RG and to Fed at Wimbledon & Cincy may have happened however well Novak played. The losses don't worry me. The tame performances in these matches are becoming are worryingly recurring theme though.

HM Murdoch wrote:Novak's travails at staying at the top for even one year, do put the achievement of Fed's longevity into perspective!

I think it's pretty clear we saw Federer as the superior player. You just seem to be taking any discussion of Novak's form as a slight against Fed.

I don't expect you to change your view as I think you've decided you are annoyed, you're just looking for a reason exactly why.

But at least everyone else can now see what was really being said.

Of course Murdoch, nobody who objectively looks at the way Djoko played early in the season and how he is playing now and compares that to his mid season slump could argue otherwise. BB there is nothing nebulous about what Djoko has gone through and has gone through this year and some breaks went against him. He still finished number 1 and looks to be better at the end of the season than he was at the start. Funny thing is that you have often been the one to denigrate Novak's AO 08 win against fed because of the mono. But pointing out that Novak's torn back had something to do with Fed's rise to the number one is some how not ok? Was it ok when prior to 2011 you routinely dissed Novak's mono assisted slam win in your words? I don't want to beat a dead horse but we are well aware of positions that people have held and made dating back to old 606.

I agree with Julius and Lags the year end #1 is decided and making 3 out of 4 grandslam finals is a big accomplishment in itself. But I do love the fact that the two best players of the season are squaring off in the last match of the year. It really should be five setter like in the old days in my opinion.

It's one thing to look at an event in itself, or a season wrecking injury or illness, but another to impose a short term event onto the whole season. Djokovic was supposed to have hurt himself in Cincinnatti yet went on to win the USO in a massive endurance contest, so at worst he suffered in the few events after that. Maybe that was just the price of what he'd won before, everyone has a limit.

But whatever, it's wrong to then take a years ranking and focus on singular events. It happens to them all; Federer looked impaired against Tsonga - maybe if not he wins Wimbledon beating Nole in the semis and that balances all that end of season stuff?

So where exactly does this WTF win, with its 1,500 points, put Djoko in terms of his current stay at number one ? He seems to have put a fair few points between himself and Fed who has a good start to 2012 to defend over the next few months.
May be Murray will be the one to challenge Djoko at the top, rather than Fed, and particularly as Rafa is a long way behind pointswise and of uncertain fitness.
May be a case can be made for Djoko staying top for the whole of 2013 ?

Murray has some ground to make up - you make the point yourself that Djokovic has put clear blue water between himself and Fed - Murray trails by another 2000 points which means that he will have to do better than 2012 by at least another major and a high level of consistent achievement in everything else to get close.

By winning Djokovic has probably safeguarded the position after the AO; it is there that he has 1300 more points to defend than Federer. Had the result gone the other way Federer would have been favourite to recapture the ranking.

I doubt Federer will be seen at #1 again; he has no real incentive left in terms of records/landmarks (passed Sampras, registered 300 weeks) worth pushing himself as he did for most of the last year. I think a more selective approach will become his habit now.

B'Brush. Agree about Fed. Sure he'd be happy to stay top three or four, remain competitive, win (perhaps) one slam and still enjoy it.
Can quite seriously see him in another O2 final in 12 months time. It's not as if Djoko wiped the floor with him.
You'll no doubt recall Agassi staying on well into his 30s and saying he wanted to continue playing to a standard whereby the other guy had to produce a REALLY GOOD PERFORMANCE to beat him

Indeed; it all goes round in a circle. After being thrashed by Federer in the 2003 Masters Final he said he was inspired to carry on trying because of the tennis Federer was producing.

And carry on successfully he did! the only thing is that the trends of the game (slowing) brought it towards his game whereas we'd need the opposite to give Federer encouragement.

Sirfred, one pointed separated the two competitors 96-95. I think that goes to what you are saying. Why would fed with his bank account and trophy case not be happy about just about beating the world 1 and six years his junior and to win a slam? Everything now is just extra gravy. I think fed will be around as long as he can get his victories in against the top guys and as long as his body doesn't trouble him. To me this match left me wanting more from tennis, more from Djokovic, and left me wanting more from Federer in particular. And I think he is in the position to deliver a few more matches of this quality for certain.

Socal - let's hope we get a few more big match ups involving the Swiss. Wonder if he is actually missing Rafa in a way. He'd love to have a really big win against Rafa again - preferably on clay and preferably when Rafa is fully fit.
Still remarkable how the top three have dominated, with the points distribution meaning that Rafa has managed to stay in the top four. Apart from the Ferrer win at Paris when everyone else was either absent or chucking the towel in, all the big tournment wins have gone to the top guys.
Can't say I'm one who bemoans the "same old faces" at the very top. Even without Rafa for half the year we've had some terrific match ups, with Rafa's absence meaning that the other three have met each other even more, with rarely a dud match between them.
If we're going to get the same big four for a couple of years more I, for one, am not complaining. If somebody - del Potty? - breaks through, then good luck to them.