Federer

Nadal looked absolutely dominate late in the game. Very humble guy as well.

He has now done what many would have perceived as impossible not that long ago.

He's the real deal.

MAH
 
I think it's safe to declare someone "the real deal" well before he wins his 9th major and completes a career Slam. :)

You know, I haven't actually seen Djoko play that much recently -- the timing never really worked out for it -- but the guy is really, really good.
 
Meh, not really. Nothing's at stake. I suppose any match between Fed and Rafa is notable to some extent, but that's about it.
 
David Jimerson said:
Meh, not really. Nothing's at stake. I suppose any match between Fed and Rafa is notable to some extent, but that's about it.
Click to expand...
Why is nothing at stake? This is the biggest tournament of the year. This is the Barclay's ATP championship. This is the tournament that's designed to be "the best of the best".

If Federer wins, he ties Sampras and Lendl as the all-time champion with the most titles.

If Nadal wins, it'll be his first time ever and will really put a crown on this year. Nadal's said it's harder to win the ATP Championship than it is to win any Grand Slam event (and, for him, that's certainly true as he's never even made it to the finals of this tournament before).

I don't know why the Barclay's ATP Tour Finals isn't known as a bigger deal than it is. In past years you'd lock Connors, Borg, McEnroe, Lendl, Edberg, Nastase, Becker, and Borg all in a room and have a case of "eight men enter, one man leaves." It's the Thunderdome of tennis.

Look at the top-10 list of all-time champions:
Lendl & Sampras: 5 titles each
Federer & Nastase: 4 titles each
Becker & McEnroe: 3 titles each
Hewitt & Borg: 2 titles each.

As far as tour points and impact on the rankings, this tournament depends on how well you do, but the winner can earn up to 1500 points, which is second only to the Grand Slam events. As far as points & ranking goes, it's right behind the grand slams, and as far as bragging rights goes, it's a biggie.
 
OK, maybe there's a little bit at stake, but it's not like this is the Rose Bowl of tennis. Can you name, without looking it up, the past three champions? Maybe it ought to be a bigger deal (it certainly has the mechanics to be), but it's really not. It's the "finals" in name only -- the winner doesn't (necessarily) become the champion of tennis.

Bragging rights are cool, but it doesn't amount to much more than any other non-Slam. The outcome of the match won't put a dent in the rankings either way. So, while there could be some cool personal history made, I don't see it as a "big match." Put rankings on the line (especially if the winner would finish out the year at #1 because of it), put a Grand Slam on the line, put an all-time record on the line, even put someone's consecutive streak on the line -- then you have a big match. Heck, if it would tip their head-to-head one way or the other it would be a bigger deal, too. But the biggest thing here, really, is that Fed may tie a comparatively minor, non-consecutive record.

Now, if they wanted to juice it up and make it into a truly big deal on par with or bigger than a Grand Slam, then hey. But that's not what it currently is.
 
David Jimerson said:
OK, maybe there's a little bit at stake, but it's not like this is the Rose Bowl of tennis. Can you name, without looking it up, the past three champions?
Click to expand...
Well, I know Davydenko won it last year. And Federer won it last in 2007. So that leaves 2008, and ... no, I'm not sure who won it in 2008. Maybe Djokovic? I don't know.

Then again, can you name the last four winners of the Women's Australian Open? (I'm not using the Men's because we all know the answers, as basically only two guys have won 'em for the last 5 years)...

Maybe it ought to be a bigger deal (it certainly has the mechanics to be), but it's really not. It's the "finals" in name only -- the winner doesn't (necessarily) become the champion of tennis.
Click to expand...
I know that I didn't use to pay attention to it, but this year I've found it fascinating. The whole structure of it is just so much better. In a Grand Slam, the whole dynamics change if someone knocks Nadal out of the French or Roger out of Wimbledon early. In the ATP Finals, you gotta go through the round robin. You don't get to dodge any bullets. It really is Thunderdome.

But yes, I think it should be emphasized as a bigger deal. Why are there fewer points allocated to winning this championship, than to a single Grand Slam event? That doesn't make any sense. The Grand Slam events are where you win seven matches, but really four of them are usually cakewalks, and you might face one or two top-10 players before the finals. But in the ATP championships, you gotta face five of the top-eight players in the world. There are no wild-cards, this is invitation only. Why wouldn't this be worth 5,000 points instead of (a maximum of) 1500?

Bragging rights are cool, but it doesn't amount to much more than any other non-Slam. The outcome of the match won't put a dent in the rankings either way.
Click to expand...
Okay, I'm not sure why you say this. This is the most points anyone can win outside of a Grand Slam title. Winning this tournament propelled Gustavo Kuerten to the #1 ranking in the world.

I think the last five years of Roger and Rafa have skewed the way these things are weighted and their impact. Back when Sampras was lord, he would win one, maybe two Grand Slam titles. And the rest of the guys would win the other slams and enough of the Masters 1000 tournaments so that there was competition and a race. But with R&R, we have two guys who are both the all-time leaders in Masters 1000 titles (I think Rafa holds 19 titles and Roger is 18?) so that effectively neutralizes a lot of the competition. And Roger has won 3 of the 4 slam titles I can't remember how many times, and Rafa currently holds 3 of the 4. So there's not room for everyone else to mix it up. But back when there wasn't this absolute domination, the ATP title could and would be quite a tiebreaker and really put the finishing touches on who was the dominant player of that year.

Put rankings on the line (especially if the winner would finish out the year at #1 because of it)
Click to expand...
In a normal year, that would happen.

, put a Grand Slam on the line
Click to expand...
Well, if they were thinking right, they'd make this a bigger title than a grand slam. There are four grand slams every year, but only one no-holds-barred championship.

put an all-time record on the line
Click to expand...
Well, again, Roger has the chance to tie the most titles of anyone at what SHOULD BE the biggest championship of the year, so that's a big deal. And it remains the one major crown jewel that has eluded Rafa.

But the biggest thing here, really, is that Fed may tie a comparatively minor, non-consecutive record.
Click to expand...
Well, I guess to each his own on how they value it. I think the Masters 1000 are a reasonably big deal -- with 1,000 tour points awarded, they're big events, and a large part of why Rafa was the dominant #2 for years and years. And the ATP championships may not have the right ratio of points to grandeur, but it's definitely the most awesome of the tournament formats, and you gotta be a pretty big player to come out of it a winner. Look at the top winners list again, that's not a list of slouchers. :)

Now, if they wanted to juice it up and make it into a truly big deal on par with or bigger than a Grand Slam, then hey. But that's not what it currently is.
Click to expand...
Agreed that in perception it isn't as big of a deal as it should be. But this isn't some 250-point tour stop like Stockholm, and it's not a 500-point tour stop like Basel, this is 1500 points at stake. This is bigger than anything else out there, short of a GS title.

But yeah, it should be 3,000 points at stake, if they want to make it be what it should be.
 
Interesting, and weird -- the Grand Slam events are *not* ATP tour events. I don't know how or why, but on the ATP site it says that the Grand Slams and the Davis Cup events are not ATP events. Even though the ATP is the organization that does the rankings, and participants in both GS and DC events do earn ATP tour points, but the events are not ATP tour events. So maybe therein lies the key as to why the ATP Championships are at a smaller level than the Grand Slams -- because they're not ATP events? So maybe they have better promoters and better TV deals and whatnot? I dunno, but I do think it's weird.
 
I don't mean to say it can never make a dent in the rankings. But tomorrow, it can't. Nadal is up on Fed by what, 3800 points? And the most Fed can close it by is 500. I'm simply referring to tomorrow's match when I say it's not that big.

And yes, I can name the last three women's Australian champs. :)
 
Barry_Green said:
Interesting, and weird -- the Grand Slam events are *not* ATP tour events. I don't know how or why, but on the ATP site it says that the Grand Slams and the Davis Cup events are not ATP events. Even though the ATP is the organization that does the rankings, and participants in both GS and DC events do earn ATP tour points, but the events are not ATP tour events. So maybe therein lies the key as to why the ATP Championships are at a smaller level than the Grand Slams -- because they're not ATP events? So maybe they have better promoters and better TV deals and whatnot? I dunno, but I do think it's weird.
Click to expand...

Could be because they were all amateur events and predate the ATP by quite a bit. They're pretty much their own things.
 
Very likely. But why would they allow them to usurp their own title, by giving them even more rankings points than their own? Ah well, I shall not fret about it.

No, nothing can change the rankings this year. Nadal had an awesome year, and won a ton of stuff he hadn't before, and that gave him a huge lead. Federer could only go down, Nadal had lots of room to go up. And Federer's year was pretty lousy, although he's had a surge at the end. Next year will be interesting; the only notable title Roger has to defend is the Australian, whereas Nadal has to defend all three GS titles, so ... could be an interesting year.

What's disappointing is how the competition that seemed like they were gonna be something, have all just faded away. Davydenko? No-show this year. Djokovic? Joke-ovic is more like it. Murray? Nuthin'. Federer gave him his biggest butt-whoopin' in the round robin of the Barclay's. Soderling? Didn't even qualify for the finals. You and I both thought he was going to really become something, but the second half of 2010 sure hasn't shown it. Del Potro? Didn't even play this year, did he? Berdych raised a couple of eyebrows, and I thought Ferrer might do something but he got slaughtered, 0-3 at the ATP final.

So it remains that the top two are miles ahead of the rest. Which isn't to take anything away from them, but is it really a surprise that they're the two who exited Thunderdome?
 
Hey, I just looked at your question again about the Australian and how the men's side is easy because it's only between two guys. I actually thought remembering the women's side was easy for the same reason, and it works for the last four just as well as the last three.
 
Outside of the Slams; the rest are for money and points and gearing up for slams.

As pete always said 'No one cares who wins Cincinnati"
 
Even so, my point was more about tomorrow's match than the tournament. It's Rafa and Fed, but it's not a big match.

Today was the OSU/Michigan game, the one football game of the year I'll move heaven and earth to watch. Today, there was something at stake because OSU could get a Rose Bowl berth out of it. But there have been many years when one of them had already clenched the Rose Bowl and the other one was stuck with the cereal bowl, and being the last game of the season, the game itself didn't matter. Sure, it was still THE OSU/MICHIGAN GAME, but it wasn't a BIG game. Not even when the underdog managed an upset, which of course happened now and then.

So, it's still Rafa and Fed, but it doesn't matter.
 
Barry_Green said:
Hah! Serena... she's the female Federer when she's playing and not playing around as drama queen...

Okay, Mr. Smarty Pants, I should have chosen the French instead. Without looking it up, who were the last four women's French Open winners?
Click to expand...

You know, I don't remember who won THIS year! It was Kusnetsova last year; Ivanovic the year before, and I want to say Henin (who's always a safe bet) before that.

Edit: Safina this year? No, I think she flamed out.

Edit: Having looked it up, Schiavone. Never even heard of her.
 
Well, okay, sure... but I still say if Federer wins, he grabs what should be regarded as the most awesome title in tennis, for the record-tying 5th time. And if Nadal wins, it's the one thing missing from his list of accomplishments. So yeah, it's on the DVR.
 
Barry_Green said:
Well, okay, sure... but I still say if Federer wins, he grabs what should be regarded as the most awesome title in tennis, for the record-tying 5th time. And if Nadal wins, it's the one thing missing from his list of accomplishments. So yeah, it's on the DVR.
Click to expand...

Should be a fun match to watch, no doubt. But it's not like one of the huge Wimbledon 5-setters going late into the dark. That's just not tomorrow.

Of course, once in a lifetime, you get one of these:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Michigan_vs._Ohio_State_football_game
 
David Jimerson said:
Should be a fun match to watch, no doubt. But it's not like one of the huge Wimbledon 5-setters going late into the dark. That's just not tomorrow.
Click to expand...
And maybe that's another reason why the Slams are viewed higher; they're 5-set epics, whereas the ATP Championships are 3-setters...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top