Stop Worrying! Federer Will Qualify For The WTF

So says Nadal

“He’s going to go, he’s going to qualify. I am sure of that,” Nadal told reporters in Shanghai. “He (Federer) is not going to have a problem. Even if he doesn’t have lots of points of advantage, I feel he always played well in this last part of the season. He likes to play in these tournaments. He always had the positive results. I really feel that he will do it. He’s a great player and I am sure he will be there and fighting for the title.”

http://www.tennis.com/pro-game/2013/10/nadal-federer-will-qualify-london/49402/#.UlRvbBCKLLY

Still very much in the balance methinks, although I do hope Rafa is correct. I'm sure he feels that the event would lose a little something without Federer, he has been so much part of the scene for so long.

Nobody has racked up more WTF match wins than Federer, or more Titles. And one more qualification this year will enable him to equal the record for consecutive appearances (12) currently held by Ivan Lendl.

Get to it Roger ...... !

hawkeye wrote:So says Nadal

So Say We All - From Battlestar Galactica TV Series (Edward James Olmos).

I just had a thought. Could Rafa be wrong? HE, can you tell me - is Rafa ever wrong?
If he's been wrong before, even once, then maybe Fed won't make the WTF after all.

Rafa is of course, never wrong.

"I must play my best whether I am playing world #1 or #100, no?"

Is it then a co-incidence that in 2012 he lost as many times to the world #1 as he did to the world #100? Nadal obviously posseses some esoteric knowledge, thus so he says it, so shall it be.

@KR... Shakespeare or Shaw?

JuliusHMarx wrote:I just had a thought. Could Rafa be wrong? HE, can you tell me - is Rafa ever wrong?
If he's been wrong before, even once, then maybe Fed won't make the WTF after all.

Julius. It's quite cute that your so interested in my opinion on whether Rafa is ever wrong and I'm so tempted to feed you the answer you want... Ha ha! Rafa is never wrong! He can see into the future... Hopefully for tennis fans in this case anyway  

I'm really looking forward to the Federer/Djokovic quarter in Shanghai (if they can both get through their first two matches). I expect them both to attempt to bring out their best in that match. A win for Federer would be a great confidence boost.

Roger will get there, simply because Andy won't be turning up

Hence, I cannot see him falling to 10th in the race

(see also my post under The Race to London). Fed as at least won today which gives him, I think, another 90 points. The draw is quite crucial as Stan and Raonic cannot BOTH do well and others may help by knocking out contenders.
Even if Rog cannot get past Djoko he SHOULD beat Monfils for another 90 points

Nadal was actually in the crowd watching Roger's match. Making sure the horse he backed can gallop through.

Well being 'part-time' he has to fill his hours some how. What better way to do it than watching Roger.

I read that Seppi took the initiative in the match though - by breaking first.

kingraf wrote:Nadal was actually in the crowd watching Roger's match. Making sure the horse he backed can gallop through.

I wonder if he will cheer him on against Novak?

hawkeye wrote:

kingraf wrote:Nadal was actually in the crowd watching Roger's match. Making sure the horse he backed can gallop through.

I wonder if he will cheer him on against Novak?

He might have gone home by then - he only plays part-time these days, presumably due to other interests outside tennis.

Might have a DJ set lined up in Ibiza, or a Bacardi party to go host... Watch shopping with Jay Z for Christmas.... Or maybe he and Federer both make early exits and go shopping for matching

JuliusHMarx wrote:

hawkeye wrote:

kingraf wrote:Nadal was actually in the crowd watching Roger's match. Making sure the horse he backed can gallop through.

I wonder if he will cheer him on against Novak?

He might have gone home by then - he only plays part-time these days, presumably due to other interests outside tennis.

He only plays part-time because he has only played for part of the year. But when he does play a tournament he is generally good enough to stick around to the end (that's why he's number one...)

What is the objection to saying Nadal has only played part-time? It's the truth. I believe when he's not playing he spends his time on the party island of Majorca...

hawkeye wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

hawkeye wrote:

kingraf wrote:Nadal was actually in the crowd watching Roger's match. Making sure the horse he backed can gallop through.

I wonder if he will cheer him on against Novak?

He might have gone home by then - he only plays part-time these days, presumably due to other interests outside tennis.

He only plays part-time because he has only played for part of the year. But when he does play a tournament he is generally good enough to stick around to the end (that's why he's number one...)

What is the objection to saying Nadal has only played part-time? It's the truth

It's twisting the truth. Is he playing part-time now? Did he not commit himself to his tennis career in that time off by undergoing treatment and rehabilitation? Is every player who misses a tournament through injury a part-time player?

You call it the truth, I call it a joke (and a rather dull one at that).
As I said before, you're actually spoiling Rafa's achievement (in the context of this forum), more than celebrating it, which is a pity.

I hear the only reason Nadal is even playing is because he won a small fortune from online poker. Only problem with that is that he went in a large fortune.


No choice but to keep winning

I think you're being generous JhM. It's not even twisting the truth. It's just not true. On any level. It is rubbish.

Has he played part-time this year? No. Did he play part-time last year? No.

Does an employee who has not worked a full year at their new job classify as 'part-time' because they haven't worked a full year? No. Does an employee who has been off sick, for what ever reason or what ever the time off, class as a 'part-time' employee. No.

He has played his schedule, for what ever the reason, in a truncated time scale. He has entered, and played, the same if not more matches and tournaments than everyone around him. He is number one by virtue he has done better than anyone else.

There is no limit to how many tournaments a player can enter in a season. Just a limit on how many can be used for ranking purposes.

There is no threshold for a player being classed as 'full-time' or 'part-time'. If Rafa is part-time, then so is every player on the tour. There is no base line.

I'm sure there are countless other examples in the tour's history where the number 1 player has entered fewer competitions than the players below them. All of these would therefore be 'part-time' by your logic by virtue of having played fewer tournaments (for what ever reason).

It can't be any clearer, no?

Right, I'm off to play (and probably lose!) at snooker.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

hawkeye wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

hawkeye wrote:

kingraf wrote:Nadal was actually in the crowd watching Roger's match. Making sure the horse he backed can gallop through.

I wonder if he will cheer him on against Novak?

He might have gone home by then - he only plays part-time these days, presumably due to other interests outside tennis.

He only plays part-time because he has only played for part of the year. But when he does play a tournament he is generally good enough to stick around to the end (that's why he's number one...)

What is the objection to saying Nadal has only played part-time? It's the truth

It's twisting the truth. Is he playing part-time now? Did he not commit himself to his tennis career in that time off by undergoing treatment and rehabilitation? Is every player who misses a tournament through injury a part-time player?

You call it the truth, I call it a joke (and a rather dull one at that).
As I said before, you're actually spoiling Rafa's achievement (in the context of this forum), more than celebrating it, which is a pity.

Nadal is number one after only playing 8 of the previous 12 months used for rankings. He only played for two thirds of the time that other players played. If a player misses a tournament or even the same amount of time (or more) that Nadal did then of course they could say they played part-time. But it's not playing part of the time that's impressive it's getting to number one whilst doing so that is as to do so a player has to win virtually everything. Proof of this is that Nadal has had to have 10 wins, 3 finals and just one first round loss on his score card to do it.

Getting to number one is a great achievement but to do it whilst not playing the full year is even more tricky. Of course these special circumstances should be acknowledged. It's ridiculous to say acknowledging them "spoils" his achievement as they enhance it. Ha ha! I don't see that I'm spoiling any celebrations here on 606v2 of Nadal getting to number one as mine is the only thread about it.... It would be nice to see an update on Cogens ranking watch?

hawkeye wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

hawkeye wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

hawkeye wrote:

kingraf wrote:Nadal was actually in the crowd watching Roger's match. Making sure the horse he backed can gallop through.

I wonder if he will cheer him on against Novak?

He might have gone home by then - he only plays part-time these days, presumably due to other interests outside tennis.

He only plays part-time because he has only played for part of the year. But when he does play a tournament he is generally good enough to stick around to the end (that's why he's number one...)

What is the objection to saying Nadal has only played part-time? It's the truth

It's twisting the truth. Is he playing part-time now? Did he not commit himself to his tennis career in that time off by undergoing treatment and rehabilitation? Is every player who misses a tournament through injury a part-time player?

You call it the truth, I call it a joke (and a rather dull one at that).
As I said before, you're actually spoiling Rafa's achievement (in the context of this forum), more than celebrating it, which is a pity.

Nadal is number one after only playing 8 of the previous 12 months used for rankings

I've read the first 16 words of this reply and it is already wrong. Rankings are not calculated dependent on how many months in a calender year you play. They are on tournaments played. If you choose to enter the tournaments required in a 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 months that is entirely up to the player.

Rafa's hand may have been forced. But it was carefully managed and done so to maximise his chances for his benefit. There are no extra kudos points for doing it in a truncated time-scale. I, as you already know, think he did very very well. I wasn't expecting him to do it. As I don't think anybody was.

HE - So if a player misses a tournament then they are a part-time player? What a load of rubbish. No-one other than yourself would even consider saying that - and with good reason.

Acknowledging and even celebrating Rafa's achievements is great - many posters on here, including myself, have done that in a sensible manner. It is a pity you could not do likewise. Reflects poorly on the forum, I feel.

Thanks for the clarification johnyjeep re rankings.

I can't help wondering just how much of what HE asserts as fact could be taken at face value by other readers - were it not for knowledgeable folk such as your goodself being present to correct some of the technical inaccuracies.

I myself don't claim to be au fait with all the nuances of the ranking system, but something had already told me that all was not what it seemed wrt HE's claim, and so your post provided welcome confirmation.

I think we are all (well I am certainly am) more than happy to readily acknowledge what a fantastic season Rafa has had. Very, very special. However, as this* thread has progressed, some of the repetitive hyperbole and increasingly desperate efforts by HE to convince us that his achievements as a mythical 'part-timer' represent a level of magnificence and mind-boggling splendiferousness that transcend anything previously (or indeed ever likely to be) witnessed in the entire world of sporting endeavour have perhaps had the opposite effect to what was intended.

* was actually referring to the 'other' thread regarding Nadal's season and return to Number One .........(but ya know what I mean .....!)

Well things have just got a lot harder with Fed's three-set loss to Monfils today. Will he now put himself down for an extra tourney?

I assume he's playing in Basel at the very least right?

whocares wrote:I assume he's playing in Basel at the very least right?

I think so. Rafa will know for sure

http://www.rogerfederer.com/en/tennis/schedule.html

Federer/Zhang lost their Doubles 10-8 in a Super TB.

Tsonga is doing ok @ Shanghai...2 more wins and he could overtake and push Federer down to 9th in the race.
In fact, Federer is only 400pts from slipping down to 12th in the race.
http://live-tennis.eu/race

He's got Basel and Paris left...unless he now enters Stockholm/Vienna/Moscow next week which I don't see given the jet lag back from China.

So his entry to WTF is nowhere near guaranteed after all - and hence my question about him being there much earlier in the year, which was almost laughed out of town at the time, is actually becoming highly pertinent!!!

Tsonga has just won again so that's another hefty bunch of points. May be this post should be headed: Start Worrying! Federer in Danger of Not Qualifying for the WTF!
Could all come down to the draw in Paris and whether those who've already qualified will play there. If Rafa and Djoko, for instance, decided to skip Paris it could help Fed, who would be higher seeded, but could also mean that someone challenging for London could get the really big points.

lydian wrote:So his entry to WTF is nowhere near guaranteed after all - and hence my question about him being there much earlier in the year, which was almost laughed out of town at the time, is actually becoming highly pertinent!!!

I was one of those people metaphorically shouting you down, but it looks like you were right to be concerned! I'm worried, I have tickets this year too and want to see him there. He should still make it though, barring a total disaster and/or a big run by someone in the 10-14 region at Paris. I think he'll scrape in at #8, being the one to benefit from Murray's withdrawal.

Well at least, from a Fed point of view, Stan the Man has been beaten by Rafa but only after a marathon first set in which I lost count of the set points each had before Rafa took it 12-10 in the tiebreak

I suppose Nadal did say Federer would qualify for the WTF. He didn't say anything about Federer winning in Shanghai.

He did watch one of Federer's matches in Shanghai and I have to admit he looked a little worried.

http://postimg.org/image/nduppy3br/

It's tough being a Federer fan at the moment...

I'm sure Federer fans aren't the only ones looking a little worried. I've a feeling the WTF  organizers might have similar expessions to Nadal.

lydian wrote:So his entry to WTF is nowhere near guaranteed after all - and hence my question about him being there much earlier in the year, which was almost laughed out of town at the time, is actually becoming highly pertinent!!!

Yes, it was a pretty impressive suggestion.  I never thought at the time it would be this close.