• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

The 2012 U.S. Open |OT| August 27th - September 9th

Status
Not open for further replies.
Laughing Banana said:
So Australian Open = Djokovic, Roland Garros = Nadal, Wimbledon = Federer, and finally US Open = Murray?

This year the line-up of Grand-Slam champions is pretty interesting, hahaha.

So, what does the result of the US Open mean in the End Year no. 1 race? Can someone educate me?
Click to expand...

Here's the current standings:
http://live-tennis.eu/race
Basically Djokovic failed to (almost) ensure himself as year end #1 tonight, but not much beyond that.
 
Laughing Banana said:
So, what does the result of the US Open mean in the End Year no. 1 race? Can someone educate me?
Click to expand...

djoker was the defending champion so he lost a good chunk of points but federer lost points too. last year federer won almost everything from here on out while novak underperformed, if fed just dips a little and novak performs normal, djokovic should take end year no.1 quite easily.
 
wonder what this will do for Murray's confidence and if he will be more of a threat at grand slams from this point on. Are we at the dawn of a Murray era?
 
Diprosalic said:
djoker was the defending champion so he lost a good chunk of points but federer lost points too. last year federer won almost everything from here on out while novak underperformed, if fed just dips a little and novak performs normal, djokovic should take end year no.1 quite easily.
Click to expand...

Federer is a better player indoors, Djokovic has never been that great of a player in indoor conditions where topspin and steady baseline play isn't as much of a weapon.
 
YES!

I feel like me saying "fuck it, i can't watch, im off to bed" when he was losing in the 4th gave him the POWAH to go on and bring it back

I'm so glad he finally got a slam, he totally deserves it.
 
Well done Murray. Glad to see he has finally won a major and it tops off a fantastic year for him. He has been an excellent player for a few years now and this success is much deserved. I have struggled to understand why people are so negative about him when the quality of his tennis has been plain for all to see.

Now win another!
 
Diprosalic said:
djoker was the defending champion so he lost a good chunk of points but federer lost points too. last year federer won almost everything from here on out while novak underperformed, if fed just dips a little and novak performs normal, djokovic should take end year no.1 quite easily.
Click to expand...

isn't the year end no.1 just the player who wins the most points 2012?
 
After Novak won the 3rd i went to sleep, watched the rest when i woke up. Good win for Murray and it's curious how will that affect his future big tourneys. There were not a few circumstances that contributed to this GS win - we'll see how he builds on it.
 
Such an achievement.

Although I browsed through the Sky Sports facebook posts, and oh dear are there some salty/stupid people.

"He's Scottish not British!"

"He did it for Scotland, not England!"

...I'm not sure if a lot of these people are being purposefully stupid or bitter for the hell of it.
 
amazeballs, literally, amaze, balls, it only took: the wimbledon final, the support of the people (at last), olympic gold medal, and an olympic silver medal, to sober up a scot enough to win a grandslam!

epic

edit: im glad murrays tears of whiskey induced us open happiness has washed away the salty from this thread, this could be his only slam, let him enjoy it, whether you like him or not
 
Personally I think he's got past his wall and see no reason why he won't go on to win more Grand Slams. Don't think the "Oh, but he has to get past Fed/Nadal/Djokovic to win it hence it's never gonna happen" argument holds any more. He can beat them. He's done it in the last 2 finals.
 
YEAH MURRAY YOU SEXY BEAST.

I went to bed last night after the third set, I had to get up early anyway and just assumed Djokavic was gonna win after that. I'm so glad Murray got his first grand slam.
 
Congrats to Murray. After his loss at Wimbledon, I finally became a fan. I was cheering for him over Novak and it is nice to see Murray finally win a big tournament (Olympics don't count, lol).

Also, as a Fed fan, this is also good. One knock I've heard from Fed haters is that a lot of Federer's GS final wins have been against players that didn't have a Slam. Four of his GS wins have been against Murray so that changes the stats in his favor.
 
Diprosalic said:
yeah, but federer has almost nothing to gain and the gap between them is very small. djoker reaching semis while federer still wins everything means djoker is number 1.
Click to expand...

i meant that being ranked no. 1 and being the year end no. 1 are two different things, and when it comes to the latter both djokovic and federer have just as many points to gain. djokovic only has to play decent to get number one ranking, but if federer plays great he can be the year end no. 1, even if he drops to 2 in rankings.
 
John Dunbar said:
i meant that being ranked no. 1 and being the year end no. 1 are two different things, and when it comes to the latter both djokovic and federer have just as many points to gain. djokovic only has to play decent to get number one ranking, but if federer plays great he can be the year end no. 1, even if he drops to 2 in rankings.
Click to expand...

Right now Djokovic is 1000 points ahead of Federer in the points race for YE #1. So Federer will have to do better than Novak for the rest of the year.

However, you are right, in some ways YE #1 doesn't mean much more than just ranked #1. YE #1 means you had the best "calendar" year compared to the week to week #1 which means you had the best "last 12 months". The only time they are the same is at the end of the year of course.
 
Porthos said:
Right now Djokovic is 1000 points ahead of Federer in the points race for YE #1. So Federer will have to do better than Novak for the rest of the year.

However, you are right, in some ways YE #1 doesn't mean much more than just ranked #1. YE #1 means you had the best "calendar" year compared to the week to week #1 which means you had the best "last 12 months". The only time they are the same is at the end of the year of course.
Click to expand...

Year end ranking matters because it sums up overall season performance. Rankings are (with the exception of off-season) bridged across two seasons. Nadal said a couple moinths ago that he pays more attention to the Race than to the rankings and I think he's right. Players should put the past season behind in November/December, review it and put goals for the next season, ie. "I want to be reach top 10 at the end of 2013", not "I want to be top 10 somewhere in July" because it puts to much pressure on performance in individual tournaments (defending points and all that).

If Djokovic is #1 at the end of the year, then he will be the best player in 2011 and 2012, even if Roger has a stretch of time when he's the best player in a part of 2011 and a part of 2012. However, I hope Fed can achieve YE#1 again after 2 years of missing that spot.
 
So the stat and records of ending the year at #1 that are always cited are about that calendar year only and not the 'standard' ranking? I thought that the secondary ranking is only to decide the top players who will participate in the WTF (same as in WTA, and them being called Race to London\Istanbul).

Though i always thought it weird that you don't get ranking points for retaining a title. I mean, a player like Novak who had an amazing 2011 can only go down because it's next to impossible to repeat the success and anyhow you won't get point for winning the titles again. So theoretically if you have a close to unbeaten year the only way you can gain point the following years is to play tournaments you hadn't.
 
Ratings:

More than 16 million watch Murray's U.S. Open win

CBS Sports says 16.2 million viewers caught all or part of Andy Murray's victory.
Mike Groll/AP

NEW YORK (AP) -- Andy Murray's five-set victory over Novak Djokovic in the U.S. Open final was watched by more than 16 million on TV, an increase from last year's 11.8 million and the highest total since 2007.

CBS Sports says 16.2 million viewers caught all or part of Murray's 7-6 (10), 7-5, 2-6, 3-6, 6-2 win. It was an increase of 4.4 million from Djokovic's victory against Rafael Nadal in the 2011 final and 10.3 million more than Nadal's victory over Djokovic two years ago, according to Nielsen numbers provided by the network.

The men's final was originally scheduled for Sunday but it was pushed back a day due to rain.

CBS Sports also said Tuesday that Serena Williams' three-set win against Victoria Azarenka on Sunday had 17.7 million viewers, the highest total for the women's final since 20.1 million for Serena's victory against sister Venus in 2002.
Click to expand...

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/te...ampaign=Feed:+rss/si_tennis+(SI.com+-+Tennis)
 
Saty said:
So the stat and records of ending the year at #1 that are always cited are about that calendar year only and not the 'standard' ranking? I thought that the secondary ranking is only to decide the top players who will participate in the WTF (same as in WTA, and them being called Race to London\Istanbul).
Click to expand...
You are right, year end ranking is the standard ranking from the week after ATP Finals.

Though i always thought it weird that you don't get ranking points for retaining a title. I mean, a player like Novak who had an amazing 2011 can only go down because it's next to impossible to repeat the success and anyhow you won't get point for winning the titles again. So theoretically if you have a close to unbeaten year the only way you can gain point the following years is to play tournaments you hadn't.
Click to expand...

They do get points for winning a title. Only last year's points come off at the same time, which is only logical. If you were getting extra points for defending a title, Nadal with his Monte Carlo streak would be #1 till the end of time.

Ranking isn't to show how consistent a player was in the last 3 years, only how he performed in the last 52 weeks. They're not there to massage a player's ego, only to determine tournament seeds.
 
Saty said:
Though i always thought it weird that you don't get ranking points for retaining a title. I mean, a player like Novak who had an amazing 2011 can only go down because it's next to impossible to repeat the success
Click to expand...

you don't really get it then. winning the title the next year is just as good as when you won it the first time. nobody gets punished for winning too much in a season. the only thing that worked against djokovic this season is that he was the defending champ which adds maybe a little bit more pressure and a little bit more press work.
 
Nice Finals for men/women, really enjoyed watching Murray and Azarenka play this year, I hope to see them win a couple more majors hopefully. Fed is still my favorite, but is fun cheering for the underdog, yeah Azarenka is rank #1 but she is always the underdog facing Serena.
 
szaromir said:
They do get points for winning a title. Only last year's points come off at the same time, which is only logical. If you were getting extra points for defending a title, Nadal with his Monte Carlo streak would be #1 till the end of time.

Ranking isn't to show how consistent a player was in the last 3 years, only how he performed in the last 52 weeks. They're not there to massage a player's ego, only to determine tournament seeds.
Click to expand...

It is logical but still a bit iffy when you can go through to the final again, win it and knowing you can't raise your ranking up but only stand to lose. Something like 250 points for retaining a 1000 title and 500 points for GS won't throw the ranking system off and its purpose will remain intact.
 
Saty said:
It is logical but still a bit iffy when you can go through to the final again, win it and knowing you can't raise your ranking up but only stand to lose. Something like 250 points for retaining a 1000 title and 500 points for GS won't throw the ranking system off and its purpose will remain intact.
Click to expand...
So a five time defending champion would be defending 4000 points?
 
No, he would be defending the regular GS points from a year before. Retaining points won't be needed to be defended. Retain, get bonus 500 points, if you lose then (whatever you did in the tournament) - (2000). You can limit the bonus for the first consecutive back2back wins.
 
Saty said:
It is logical but still a bit iffy when you can go through to the final again, win it and knowing you can't raise your ranking up but only stand to lose. Something like 250 points for retaining a 1000 title and 500 points for GS won't throw the ranking system off and its purpose will remain intact.
Click to expand...

i think you still don't get it.
 
Saty said:
No, he would be defending the regular GS points from a year before. Retaining points won't be needed to be defended. Retain, get bonus 500 points, if you lose then (whatever you did in the tournament) - (2000). You can limit the bonus for the first consecutive back2back wins.
Click to expand...

what would be the point of any of this? all the old points are erased, so the problem you seem to feel exist is not just with the winner, but everyone who played the previous year. what's the point in getting all the way to the semis or the final if you did so last year, since you won't be gaining any points? they're all defending their points, and it's not really an issue that the winner can't get more than 2,000.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

The Lucas Museum of Narrative Art will open on September 22, 2026
10
451
jason10mm replied
Why does every thread I open on my phone open to the 2nd page?
19
515
Esca replied
Oscars 2026 |OT|
2 3
149
2K
DKehoe replied
Tim Cook stepping down as Apple CEO, John Ternus will take over in September
2
51
465
AJUMP23 replied
Trailer for 'The Office' spinoff, 'The Paper', streaming September 4th
2
82
3K
GateofD replied
Top Bottom