Skyline Drifter

Federer is a good bit older but Djokovic and Nadal are the same age (give or take). Murray will have to win tourneys on merit, they aren't going to get out of his way anytime soon.

So not at all like Greg Norman then? Good example. Alternately you might want to make your point with a Colin Montgomerie example? It would have made much more sense.

And t'is done. 6-4 6-2 6-2 Pretty routine. Melzer next. Much more dangerous.

All getting very comfortable for Murray. Two sets up and a double break up at 4-1 in the 3rd. Should only be a few minutes left really.

Well? Did they? The atp site still includes them. It's maybe just not been updated yet though.

Agreed, Very dangerous floater. Other half of the draw to Andy I think though isn't he?

Yeah, I don't think he could have asked for an awful lot more in terms of his quarter of the draw. I think Gulbis flatters to deceive more often than not too Stewart. If Murray is fit then, in the sort of form he has been in the last six months, semi finals is the very least you'd be looking for. That back of his is always an issue though I suppose. I'd guess he would rather have been in Federer's half of the draw than Nadal's but that's getting picky and Nadal's possibly in worse form than Fed at the moment anyway. Just that Murray, away from major finals(!) appears to have the complete Indian Sign over Fed but has yet to prove he can do that consistently to Nadal.

He's in section 2, Nadal's half of the draw. He first faces Andrei Pavel who should be relatively easily despatched. He's been a half decent player in his day but he's 34 now and has been out injured for about a year. If he wins that he'll face either Gabashvili of Russia or Granollers of Spain, neither of whom I've ever heard of! The Russian is ranked 64 in the world, the Spaniard is 50 so there's probably not an awful lot to choose between them and Murray ought to be way too good for either. No 31 seed Jurgen Melzer is the likely 3rd round opponent. Murray beat him in Davis Cup at Winbledon at the end of last year. He's not a bad player but also nowhere near Murray's class. Then it starts to get more complicated. He's seeded to meet Fernando Verdasco, No 14, in the last 16 although the dangerous Radek Stepanek or even Arnaud Clement could be there by then. Last eight could potentially see James Blake or Jo-Wilfried Tsonga in his sights. Here is where it gets really dangerous obviously and Tsonga, beaten finalist in the Aussie last year, knocked Murray out in the 1st round last year. Obviously if he makes last four then Nadal is likely to await and then either Djokovic or Federer in a final.

I'd generally agree other than that I think in terms of public interest it peaked much earlier than that. Mid-80's more likely and certainly the early 90's at latest. The standard of play on the other hand we'll go round in circles about but personally I think it peaked 4 or 5 years earlier than you have it.

It's a bit like getting a valentine from your mother (except in Fife or Stranraer where that can often mean something completely different ). It's not really exactly what you want but it'll do and it's better than nothing.

I agree with your calculations though I don't think your opening conclusion matches them. I wouldn't have said it was "almost certain" that he'll move up to 3 by winning. It's hardly a reach to suggest even if he does win that Djokovic would make at least semi finals given that the four of them are fairly clearly the best four in the world.

The bit in bold is as completely irrelevant now as it was about 20 posts ago yet you keep trotting it out. He wouldn't however be No 1 in a race list right now covering 12 months. He'd be No 4 which would match his world ranking because inherently for the top players the race list over any 12 months will match their ranking order. However, given that we've gone from you claiming it would be unlikely that Murray would be No 1 by the US Open even if he beats Nadal in every event and it would take a complete collapse by Nadal for it to happen, to you accepting Murray would "probably" be No 1 (he definitely would be incidentally), I'm going to take it that this is as close to an admission that you were wrong as we're going to get. We can stop the debate and go think about something else now if you'd prefer.

Just to further clarify. Stewart seems to be convinced that because the actual points awarded for the ATP Race table were different this means the effects on standing are different. Well they could be I suppose but only at the lower rankings. The points available for Grand Slam winners, Masters events, the Masters Cup and International series events were awarded in exactly the same ratios so inherently the same people ended up in the same positions and with the same relative points differences. Where there WAS a difference was that the rankings system includes points for tournaments that the ATP Race does not count. However, both of them only count the best 18 results in the 12 month period so only for lower ranked players with poor results in the major tourneys is that likely to have any effect. For the top 4 or 5 players without a shadow of a doubt, the ATP Race table reflects the World rankings table in ANY given 12 month period you want to look at. I stand by the point. It is a fact that if Murray acquired the most points of any tennis player between US Open 2008 and December 31st 2008 then, if he also leads the ATP Race table for 2009 when the US Open starts (presuming there is one) he WILL be number one in the official rankings.

Ach it's a debate, not an argument. We haven't actually fallen out about anything.

Whether there was a separate list or not is irrelevant. Whether the race resets to zero or not is fairly irrelevant (in fact it is what makes our case, not yours) Whether the actual points awarded towards the "race" were different is also irrelevant. What is a matter of fact is that the player who has acquired the most "race" points in any given 12 months will also be the World No 1 at that same point. You have in fact already conceded that to be the case in one of your previous posts at December 31st. Logically it will be exactly the case at any other point in time you care to name too. Yes, the race list at that time won't match the rankings list because they are based over a different period but if you were to build up a nominal race list for the 12 month period you were looking at it would in fact be the same (or near as damn it depending on some tournament date changes). If you want to look at June 30th then the race points from July 1st previous year to December 31st added to the race lists to that point in the current year will result in a race table that matches the world rankings, certainly in all the positions that matter. Now, I haven't actually checked is figures but I presume when VI says that Murray has gathered the most rankings points between the start of US Open 2008 and now that this is a fact (and I'm also presuming it was also the case at December 31st but if the Abu Dhabi tournament affected that position then I may be wrong). It is therefore a fact that if Murray was to lead the list (were one to be running this year) at the commencement of the US Open 2009 he would be a definite Number 1 in the world. He'd have acquired the most points between US Open and Dec 31st 2008 and most points between January 1st and US Open 2009. Your fixation on movements between points achieved last year and this appears to be blinding you to what is an incredibly obvious point. Back over the net to you then...........................

It's like banging my head against a brick wall here! Points (be they 'race' points or rankings points) from US Open 08 to Jan 1st are NOT irrelevant. They are irrelevant as far as the race for 09 is concerned (if indeed there is one) but they are NOT irrelevant to the point I was making, namely that from commencement of US Open 08 until the start of 2009 Murray has the most ranking points accrued. If he therefore also leads the "Race" (and granted there may not be one in reality during 2009 but that's not relevant either) between Jan 1st and commencement of US Open 09 then he is BOUND to be No 1 in the world. This is a fact. It's not up for debate and it's not maybe / maybe not. You can continue to ignore those points all you like but ATP do not and they form part of the rankings points at the moment and will continue to do so until the US Open 2009. It's a rolling year. As week's add, weeks drop off. We will eventually reach a point where the US Open 2008 is the oldest tournament included in the rankings. AT THAT POINT, IF MURRAY LEADS THE 2009 POINTS TOTALS ('Race Points' if you like) THEN HE WILL BE No 1 IN THE WORLD. This is because he certainly has the most points of anyone that will remain from 2008's points. It is just conceivable that Murray could be No 1 in the world without having the most points in 2009 if for instance he's a close second in 2009 points because he would have a higher carrying total still included from 2008. It is NOT possible for it to be the other way. If Murray earns the most points between Jan 1st 2009 and the date immediately before US Open 2008 points drop off (whatever date that is) then he WILL be No 1 in the world. Has to be. He'd be carrying more points from 2008 than anyone else at that point and more points from 2009 than anyone else at that point. If that's not the case tell me why it isn't? I'm well aware that race points mid year may bear little relation to rankings lists. It has no relevance to the point I'm making.

Er yes it would. Murray has got the most points of any of them from the US Open 08 to Jan 1st. If he also leads the 'Race' going into the US Open 2009 then as a matter of fact he will be No 1 in the world. This isn't difficult, I don't see why you're not getting it? He could conceivably marginally be No 1 in the world going into the US Open without being No 1 in the Race. There's not a scenario where he could be other way round so far as I can see. If he's no 1 in the Race he will by definition be No 1 in the world. He's already No 1 in the world for the period US Open to Race beginning.

You didn't say "meet" though. You said "every final from now to the US Open". I've amended that post since you first answered it anyway and added the point that you also said that Murray winning the "Race" wouldn't guarantee him No 1 spot coming into the US Open when it clearly would. On the other point. I concede you are probably right. I expect the ATP Tour site just automatically fills in the Monday date following the final of this year's event. As you also said though, that's fairly irrelevent as within a further week it's back on track again. Olympics screwed up last year's schedule and also the rankings since those are points Nadal will drop without being able to replace them, there being no Olympics this year. Murray will get a major boost relative to Nadal and Federer (did Djokovic play?) that week without playing.

Fair enough, we'll see. I use the ATP Tour site a lot (not going to pretend it's every week though) and I've never seen it be wrong but clearly one of them is this time.

Well now you're merely retreating into arguing semantics about the definition of the word "outperform" by which I quite clearly meant "earn more points than". It was YOU in the previous post who said that Murray could beat Nadal in every single final this year and still not be ranked ahead of him by the US Open which is absolute nonsense. That's why I picked up on that remark. I didn't move any goalposts. You also said that there was no guarantee that if Murray was winning the "Race" come the US Open he;d be No. 1 when in fact that's exactly what it would guarantee since he's certainly winning SINCE the US Open to date. However, on re-reading what VI posted initially, what you have given as an example would meet what he said so I take your point on that. The debate moved on after that though and when I entered it it was in response to the winning the race doesn't mean he'd be number one point. It clearly does mean that.

Well ok, I accept that's contradictory. And I also accept that it's possible either the people who fill in the atp tour rankings page aren't entirely clear on the rules and have just dropped in the date of this year's final, or that they have an auto computer process that generates the same. However, I'm not sure what grounds you have for presuming that the link to this bloke's stat page whoever he may be is more likely to be correct that the ATP's own website? Are there other sources confirming that position? As you say, we'll see over the next week or two.

Im sorry Stewart but that's nonsense. You clearly don't follow how the points system works. Or I don't I suppose but I think I'm right (surprisingly enough). I appreciate the players don't start from NIL and that the points they gain or lose in any given week don't necessarily mean they gain or lose relative to an opponent. Indeed Murray's tournament win last week LOST him points relative to the rest as he merely defended what he has whilst they other big two got more than they did at the same tourney last year (though I haven't checked and it may still not be in Fed or Nadal's best countable other tournaments). However what you seem to be completely missing is that rankings are a one year thing. There's no contribution of points from the prior year. If Murray beats Nadal in every counting tournament final between now and the US Open then he WILL be No 1. No ifs buts or maybes. He would be no 1 as a matter of fact and it would be physically impossible for anyone to have gotten more points in the previous 51 weeks. I'm really not sure how to try to explain this more clearly. Nadal has a 6,000 point lead now because he did better than Murray by about 9,000 points between last January and the US Open. Those points will drop off over the next eight months. IF Murray outperforms Nadal and Federer week by week from now until the beginning of the US Open he WILL be Number 1 going into it.

Er no. Virtual Instanity is right. The points he's quoting are just the points they've won since the US Open (which isn't the "Race points" but that's by the by, the Race Points don't start from last year's US Open). Inherently that means that, on a one year rankings system which tennis is (unlike golf for instance), then if Murray continues to outperform the others from now until then he WILL be top come the US Open. That's a matter of fact. Of course he won't continue to do that. He certainly won't outperform Nadal on clay, though how much he loses remains to be seen. It wouldn't take an awful year for anyone for Murray to be leading. It just would take him to match what they do from now to then since he's already leading the rankings for the last three months.

You seem to be struggling with comprehension of a number of things today Stewart. Click that link I already posted again, take a look at Djokovic's points from the Aussie Open and then look at the next column along. I rather suspect that the ATP know better what date he drops his point from the Aussie Open.

Er yes, very obvious. All they did was recalculate all last year's points based on this year's system. Djokovic is carrying 2,000 points from last years Aussie Open and will drop them on 2nd February. If he wins then he'll only get the same points he had. All the points and their make up are available on the ATPTour website. Djokovic's are Here