Federer is up to 450 Race points, which means he's about 99.9% sure of qualifying for the year-end championships.
Plus he becomes the first man ever to win back-to-back 96-draw events. (Satisfied with the phrasing this time, folks?)
It's mathematically possible for him to lose the #1 spot at Roland Garros. But I think you can safely bet he'll hold it until Wimbledon. (Especially since the two guys chasing him, Hewitt and Roddick, are at their worst on clay.)
Robert B. Waltz 4 April 2005 00:45:04 [ permanent link ]
"Adam Thirnis" <adam.thirnis@gmail.com> wrote:
Thanks for the speedy update.>
Henman and Gaudio 5th and 6th - that takes some swallowing. But I guess> the rankings don't lie. ;)
What Gaudio's ranking shows, mostly, is how far a player can go solely on clay under today's system. You can't do a Muster any more -- even someone who had Muster-like results would probably end up around #3.
Not sure why Henman bothers you; while certainly he hasn't had the sort of results you'd want of a #1, he *isn't* #1. I can't think of a player who clearly has a better claim to the ranking.
-- Let the people think they govern and they will be governed. -- William Penn
That's impossible for Roddick and Safin considring their respective records on clay and grass. Hewitt could do it with a single slam win + a decent showing in the other events. It's possible, especially in a scenario where Federer isn't playing.
* I _think_ Roddick's 20th tournament result is the Olympics, worth 50 points.
On Sun, 03 Apr 2005 15:09:37 -0500, "Robert B. Waltz" <waltzmn@skypoint.com> > wrote:>
Federer is up to 450 Race points, which means he's about> >99.9% sure of qualifying for the year-end championships.>
450 points would be good for #8 last year. Of course, last> year #8 didn't give entry to YEC.
There is that, I grant you.
Plus he becomes the first man ever to win back-to-back> >96-draw events. (Satisfied with the phrasing this time,> >folks?)>
Since he got first round byes, I'm not sure what significance> the 96-draw has.
Just that it's never been done. In one sense it is harder than two other Masters, since every player he plays has won at least one match -- no first round unranked wildcards. On the other hand, he of course had four weeks to win those twelve matches. I'd agree that winning, say, Canadian Open-Cincinnati is physically more demanding. But this is something different.
It's mathematically possible for him to lose the #1 spot> >at Roland Garros. But I think you can safely bet he'll> >hold it until Wimbledon.>
If none of the top-4 players from now and till after> Wimbledon, their scores will be:>
That's impossible for Roddick and Safin considring their> respective records on clay and grass. Hewitt could do it with> a single slam win + a decent showing in the other events. It's> possible, especially in a scenario where Federer isn't playing.
I said it was possible at Wimbledon. The question is Roland Garros. And the answer is, it's mathematically possible if Hewitt wins everything -- but, as you say, that won't happen.
-- Let the people think they govern and they will be governed. -- William Penn
Robert B. Waltz 4 April 2005 16:53:19 [ permanent link ]
wendyg@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote:
In article <waltzmn-03F258.20144003042005@europe.isp.giganews.com>, > waltzmn@skypoint.com (Robert B. Waltz) wrote:>
Just that it's never been done. In one sense it is harder than> > two other Masters, since every player he plays has won at least> > one match -- no first round unranked wildcards. On the other> > hand, he of course had four weeks to win those twelve matches.> > I'd agree that winning, say, Canadian Open-Cincinnati is> > physically more demanding. But this is something different.>
I thought Agassi had won the IW/Miami combination a few times and not that > long ago.
2001. No, not long ago -- but before the men's draw expanded to 1996.
I still think what Clijsters did is more impressive -- she didn't have the > benefit of seeding, and had to play more matches and many more seeded > players.
I agree, but it's not what's at issue. The two outcomes are equally unique -- Clijsters is the only woman to win back-to-back 96-draws, Federer the only man. Difficulty is another issue, and one we're guaranteed to get arguments about. The uniqueness is inarguable.
Well, I'm sure it will be argued. But the arguments will be of standard r.s.t. quality -- i.e. zero.
-- Let the people think they govern and they will be governed. -- William Penn
"Robert B. Waltz" <waltzmn@skypoint.com> wrote in message news:waltzmn-F7A96A.07531904042005@europe.isp.giganews.com...> wendyg@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote:>
In article <waltzmn-03F258.20144003042005@europe.isp.giganews.com>,> > waltzmn@skypoint.com (Robert B. Waltz) wrote:> >
Just that it's never been done. In one sense it is harder than> > > two other Masters, since every player he plays has won at least> > > one match -- no first round unranked wildcards. On the other> > > hand, he of course had four weeks to win those twelve matches.> > > I'd agree that winning, say, Canadian Open-Cincinnati is> > > physically more demanding. But this is something different.> >
I thought Agassi had won the IW/Miami combination a few times and not
that> > long ago.>
2001. No, not long ago -- but before the men's draw expanded to> 1996.>
That's impossible for Roddick and Safin considring their>> respective records on clay and grass. Hewitt could do it with>> a single slam win + a decent showing in the other events. It's>> possible, especially in a scenario where Federer isn't playing.>
I said it was possible at Wimbledon.
I'm not arguing with you, I'm just adding numbers to the words, showing the height of the mountain that Hewitt & Co. has to climb.
But the point I was making, which for some reason seems to be beyond people's comprehension, is that that was before Indian Wells expanded to a 96-draw (in all cases on the men's side; it was a 96-draw on the women's side in 2001).
You could make a pretty good case that winning Indian Wells and Miami in the old 64-then-96 format was harder than the current setup. I wouldn't argue that. But it is *different*. That's the key to the claim. Until this year, no one had ever done what Clijsters and Federer did. People have done better things -- but not *the same* thing.
-- Let the people think they govern and they will be governed. -- William Penn
Sorry to intrude. Small correction. She beat #1, #2, #3, # 5(twice!) >and #6, but *not* VW. Important if you don't want to irritate benz >paperweight.>Surprised not to have heard from Sakari. He is probably still trying >to get to grips with it.
I realized around Sunday that there was some server problems or something and that nobody had seen my messages from previous few days. Great timing with these problems with Kim beating everyone.... When I am checking through Google now, it seems that these old messages have appeared today, and some have even been replied. I especially hope that people see and comment my post to "blanders" about Kim's playing style. There I have the most important points I have to say about Kim.
It would also be nice if people say if they see this post, so I know if things are working again.
But the point I was making, which for some reason seems to be> > beyond people's comprehension, is that that was before Indian> > Wells expanded to a 96-draw (in all cases on the men's side;> > it was a 96-draw on the women's side in 2001).>
Why are people having problems comprehending that?
But the point I was making, which for some reason seems to be>>beyond people's comprehension, is that that was before Indian>>Wells expanded to a 96-draw (in all cases on the men's side;>>it was a 96-draw on the women's side in 2001).>
Why are people having problems comprehending that?>
But the point I was making, which for some reason seems to be>>>beyond people's comprehension, is that that was before Indian>>>Wells expanded to a 96-draw (in all cases on the men's side;>>>it was a 96-draw on the women's side in 2001).>>
Why are people having problems comprehending that?>
