Could Murray Catch Federer Before Wimbledon?

First topic message reminder :

Well now that Andy has the Slam monkey off the back, can he now get closer to that ever elusive goal of being number 1 ranked player in the world? Right now a race between him and Federer for the number 2 ranking. There is a great opportunity for Murray right now to really make in-roads and snag the number 2 ranking from the Swiss Maestro. That for me besides further Slam success must be a goal for Murray. I think he could go into Wimbledon ranked 2 in the world if his performances improve and if Federer cannot retain his IW or Madrid crown. Here is where they stand.

Federer - 9,855
Murray - 8,480* (is set to lose 300 points from DNP at Dubai)

As it stands these are the number of points both players are contesting from now until Wimbledon.

Federer - 3,775
Murray - 1,330

That is quite a meaty gap for Murray to really attack. He has to land a title on Clay to have a decent chance of the number 2 ranking.

How does 606V2 see this going?

I didn't admit it - you said it, not me.
Still, nice diversion from not answering my counter-arguments.

bogbrush wrote:An individual opponent can be more difficult but this doesn't facilitate weak era or weak event arguments. In the end, to win a Slam you have to beat the best, or beat the players who beat the best.

Can't argue with that. Well, I maybe can but it would take a lot of effort for something that doesn't matter, so I won't!

bogbrush wrote:Saying Wimbledon is bigger than the Australian is just a fact.

Strictly speaking, it's opinion. By any objective measure - ranking points, prize money - they're the same. Players would prefer to win Wimbledon but, to quote your good self, "truth is not determined by democracy".

You did.

Did not

And my dad is bigger than your dad

lydian wrote:Finally, Borg thought the Australian Open was so worth playing he never, ever, went there even though it was on grass. He would have won 5+ more slams no doubt...but did he bother? Would he have ever missed Wimbledon - no way!!!

Not comparing like with like though there, Lydian!

Back then, AO really was a second rate slam. Fewer of the top players went and the field was therefore clearly weaker than the other slams.

Today it has the same fields as the other three slams. Winning there is the same difficulty and the same achievement as winning the other three slams.

Any argument as to the greater value of one slam over the other in this time is based purely on history. Whilst I wouldn't refute that on its own terms, it seems a rather ethereal position. It's judging the value of something today by its value in the (or of its) past.

The thing if you had players who won the same number of Slams like in the case if you compared Borg and Nadal on that merit only then would you drill further to get a better picture of their achievements and measure them accordingly.

I think if you have 2 players who have won the same tournaments but a different number of times and have the same total haul, I don't think it should then come down to prestige of the event.

It Must Be Love wrote:BB, if the big 4 were all forced to retire today, would it not make it easier for Ferrer to win a slam?
Hed still have to win 7 matches per tournament.

Course it would, but that isn't how tennis works. The big 4 get usurped by other players who become better than them, at which point beating these new players becomes as much an achievement as beating the previous big 4.
Now winning an event where some players have beaten the big 4, well those players must be good!

On the topic of Murray getting ahead of Federer. If we knock off the points from IW last year we have.

Federer 8535
Murray 8170

Murray WINS, Murray up to 2nd whatever Federer does.
Murray RUNNER-UP, Federer has to reach the QF to retain 2nd.
Murray SF or lower, Federer remains 2nd.

Miami follows which Federer is giving a miss, though he only loses 45 points anyway. Murray however will lose 600 points as he was RU last year and if he is to gain 2nd at Indian Wells, it could prove short-lived if he doesn't follow it up with another good week.

The way fed is playing Ryan he will have a tough time defending all of his points in the spring and summer, he won Madrid on a dodgy clay court that isn't going to be in use anymore and I would not favor him repeating there and then of course the massive amount of points he has to defend during wimbeldon.

Losing the Dubai title defence, and then the IW defence may swing it Murray' way.

Federer will have to fight during Clay season, if wants to maintain a close race for #2.

I believe Federer is now the 3rd oldest No 2 of the Open era - after Agassi and Connors. Not sure about the very early 1970s though.

Connors was an ever-present in the Top 10 from 1973 until April 1989 - at the age of 36 and a half, the final week at No 2 being in April 1985, age 32 and a half.
Agassi's final week in the top 2 was August 2003 (then he dropped from 1 to 4) at the age of nearly 33 and a half.

JHM... - someone has put this handy table together.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATP_Rankings#Players_with_highest_career_rank_2.E2.80.935

In defense of Roger, Agassi was feasting on a weak era, Roger's accomplishment is much more awe inspiring.