The proverbial winners’ bracket in Group B pits Novak Djokovic against Juan Martin Del Potro on Thursday. Both players are looking to go 2-0 in round-robin play.
Novak Djokovic and Juan Martin Del Potro will be squaring off for the 14th time in their careers and for the fifth time this season when they collide in Group B competition at the World Tour Finals on Thursday night.
Djokovic leads the head-to-head series 10-3, including 7-2 on hard courts. To Del Potro’s credit, many of their showdowns have been extremely competitive–some even instant classics. After Djokovic prevailed earlier this year in Dubai, their last three encounters all went the final-set distance. Del Potro won in Indian Wells, Djokovic survived a Wimbledon semifinal epic, and the Serb just recently scored a 6-1, 3-6, 7-6(3) victory in the Shanghai title match.
These two men have been the cream of the crop since the U.S. Open, with Djokovic–despite seeing his quest for year-end No. 1 come to an end–clearly ahead of the rest of the field. The world No. 2 is a perfect 18-0 since the season’s final Grand Slam, with triumphs in Beijing, Shanghai, and Paris. He kicked off his London campaign on Tuesday with a 6-4, 6-7(2), 6-2 defeat of Roger Federer.
Del Potro captured titles in Tokyo and Basel with his runner-up in Shanghai in between. After getting bounced by Federer in the Paris quarters, the fifth-ranked Argentine was robbed of prized possessions on his way from that tournament to this one. Del Potro says he is still distracted, but he managed to persevere past Richard Gasquet 6-7(5), 6-4, 7-5 on Monday. The world No. 5 is an awesome 51-14 for the year.
Although Del Potro finally has a much-needed two days of rest under his belt, this relatively slow indoor hard court is not an ideal surface on which to face Djokovic. The favorite should be able to get just a few too many returns in play and move the big man around the back of the court. Unless Del Potro is bludgeoning forehands like he did at the 2009 U.S. Open, Djokovic may wear him down again at the end of an entertaining battle.
Pick: Djokovic in 3
[polldaddy poll=7538616]
littlefoot, Rafa has sealed the year end spot even without the Basel 150. But if Nole wins WTF and wins 225 points at DC and Rafa loses tomorrow and in the semi, then Nole could surpass him after DC if Basel is not counted.
But that would be the 52 week rolling ranking. Year end no. 1 is secure. I doubt very much that Nole would have his lawyers challenge the Basel award.
Curiously enough ATP seem to be counting the DC points or subtracting the Basel points because their site declared Rafa had clinched no. 1 spot after he had won the 2nd RR, not after the first one..Curiouser and curioser!
that’s way too confusing for any mere mortal to understand
Holdserve, I was joking, because so far, nobody has come up with a convincing explanation, why Rafa didn’t get a 150 point penalty for withdrawing from Basel. Hawkeye claimed, he had one, but hasn’t shared with us yet. And, should Rafa lose today, and then again in the semis (thus having only 2 wins in London) and should Novak really run the table in London and Belgrad (final DC points DO count for year end No 1), then, those non deducted points from Basel would make all the difference. 😉
littlefoot@November 8, 2013 at 12:33 pm
—get a 150 point penalty for withdrawing from Basel—
‘A 150 point penalty’ doesn’t exist! If Rafa had received a penalty for the withdrawal from Basel, one of his SIX best results would have been replaced with ‘zero points’ from Basel.
His worst one of the six best results (150 points from Vina del Mar) would have been moved to the ‘Non-Countable Tournaments’ section.
Right, augusta, I should’ve talked about a deduction of his 150 VdM points because of his withdrawal from Basel 😉
Bit of a larff if even the ATP have difficulty fathoming out their rules and regulations.
Remember when it took them 20 minutes to compute whether Andy was through to the semi final or not at the 2009 WTF.
@ed
Don’t mind Robbie usually but honestly……cliche city rules for most of them…:(
#BuyAThesaurus
Surely when they hear a play back they must cringe listening to the rubbish they talk. Robbie is always rabbiting on about baseball, football, cricket or whatever while we are trying to watch tennis. e.g. we were informed Berdych has just the right physique to make a good ice hockey player. I dont need to know that thank you.
#RantFinished
littlefoot, final DC points do count but for 2014 race to London.
But ATP announced Rafa as year end # 1 only after he won 2 RRs which seems to indicate they were counting the possible DC points for Nole. for 2013 year end #1.
So is it possible that ATP has 3 calculations: 1) 52 week rolling ranking,
2) Race to London which as per rankings FAQ (http://www.atpworldtour.com/Rankings/Rankings-FAQ.aspx)
” The Emirates ATP Rankings Race To London include points earned in 2013 plus points earned at the 2012 Davis Cup final and late-season 2012 Challengers and Futures played after the 2012 Barclays ATP World Tour “.
AND
3) Year end ranking calculations excluding those previous year’s late season points and including current year’s late season points. The trouble with this is how can they determine the year end no. 1 at WTF if the race is close and points after WTF are added. ?????
Rafa after 1 RR had 12230 points (12030+ 200) and Nole even if he wins WTF winning every match can have only 12110 (10610+.1500)
So why did ATP declare Rafa as having clinched year end #1 after 2 RRs which brought his total to 12430. Seems to indicate they were counting the 225 points which Nole could win at DC.
In other words, if Rafa had crashed out at WTF after 1 RR, would the coronation have had to wait till after DC? Seems unlikely.
@holdserve, we had this discussion before and we finally concluded, that the final DC points DO count for year end No1. Our best witness was Greg Sharko who explicitly said so. In this case, when they are important, the YE trophy won’t be given out in London. That is the reason, why Rafa hadn’t wrapped it up after winning against Ferru.
The confusion stem from the expression Race to London: Obviously final DC points don’t count there, because they haven’t been played out, but they DO count for YE No 1. Greg Sharko was asked that question at the ATP site, and answered it accordingly
Rafa wrapping up YE#1 after his win over Stan means ALL DC 2013 points, including what Novak can possibly earn in the DC finals, have been taken into account. So, why can’t Rafa receive his trophy now?
RITB, of course Novak can’t catch Rafa anymore! That’s why we were all celebrating! I made a joke (and forgot to include an emoticon), because The Djoker keeps running and running.
Why was Rafa so nervous before his match against Wawa and so jubilant afterwards? That was, because he knew after his win against Ferru, that it wasn’t done, yet. Otherwise, we all would’ve been celebrating his No 1 spot after his first win, and he would’ve probably got that trophy a day earlier. To me, that makes a lot of sense, since DC final belongs to THIS season, and not the next one. Coronation customs shouldn’t come into play here. Maybe, a player gets his trophy per UPS, should it play out that way.
While I wouldn’t put it past a number 2 who is so very close to a YE #1 to ask his lawyers to look into, especially when a mere lawyer’s fee is no object, I woldn’t be surprised at all that this is merely a rumour made up by someone out there.
chloro, I made up this rumour, lol! Sorry for not including the Twinkle emoticon 😉
It just seemed so weird, that we were obsessing for weeks about the 150 point deduction, finally concluded, that they have to be deducted, only to find out, they weren’t after all. And nobody could come up with a good explanation, why not. Hawkeye said, he had a convoluted explanation, but hasn’t shared so far. And now, since the Djoker keeps running, we have this scenario, which isn’t completely unlikely, where those 150 could make all the difference between No 1 and 2. Of course, if Rafa wins tonight, even the most skilled lawyer can’t take away that trophy from him. 🙂
littlefoot @November 8, 2013 at 2:45 pm
—It just seemed so weird, that we were obsessing for weeks about the 150 point deduction, finally concluded, that they have to be deducted, only to find out, they weren’t after all. And nobody could come up with a good explanation, why not.—
It’s not weird. The ATP Rulebook is long and rules are complicated. The excerpts from the Rulebook, for example in the ATP Rankings/FAQ section, don’t tell all the nuances.
I am of opinion that Rafa wasn’t penalized because he has played four ATP-500 events this season and fulfilled his obligations towards the ATP (in a proper manner). Milos Raonic, who also withdrew from Basel, was not penalized either.
I think, it’s not correct to talk about the ‘points deduction’ – a zero point penalty is an ‘event deduction’ and it lasts 52 weeks (!).
@augusta, you just confirm, what my silly joke was all about: the ATP rulebook should create a field day for lawyers, lol!
Of course, Rafa and Milos fulfilled their obligations re: 500 tourneys. But there was ANOTHER paragraph, which said, you get a 52 weeks zero pointer, if you withdraw last minute (I think, it was after the entry list was closed) without doing some promotional stuff instead. Hawkeye and Sanju had a lengthy discussion about that, and we never figured out, why the heck this paragraph didn’t apply.
— But there was ANOTHER paragraph, which said, you get a 52 weeks zero pointer, if you withdraw last minute (I think, it was after the entry list was closed) without doing some promotional stuff instead. Hawkeye and Sanju had a lengthy discussion about that—
I referred to this paragraph on October 18, 2013 at 1:58 pm in the thread “London likely, but future isn’t now for Federer” in my answer to Hawkeye.
—we never figured out, why the heck this paragraph didn’t apply—
I have figured out that the key is: ‘obligations towards the ATP were fulfilled’.
littlefoot@November 8, 2013 at 3:59 pm
If Rafa had needed to participate in “promotional activities” in Basel to avoid a ranking penalty, I am SURE his team would have arranged this. My conclusion: his team knew that this was unnecessary.
And if were Novak and had my lawyers look into it, I’d do everything I could not to have that become public. Unless and until after the DC final and if the outcome might make a difference.
@chloro, I apologize. Read my comments above 🙂
http://www.tennis.com/pro-game/2013/11/time-see-world/49730/#.UnzozOJRCDc
1. “John McEnroe won 51 of his 77 career titles indoors.”
2. “Twenty of Federer’s 77 career titles have come indoors, and that percentage has risen in the last few years. Six of those wins happened at the year-end championships.”
So, how come we don’t hear people put an asterix on John’s achievements the way they do on Rafa’s because of his clay dominance? Same applies to Fed, why the double standards?
^^^Not only that, half of Federer’s titles are 250s and 500s.
Fed has -:
17 slams
21 M1000s
12 500s
21 250s
6 WTFs
0 Olympic Gold
Rafa has-:
13 slams
26 M1000s
14 500s
6 250s
1 Olympic Gold
So Rafa has a more quality spread. Only 6 x 250 titles as opposed to 21 for Federer.
no worries, littlefoot, no worries at all
ritb, come on, everybody knows the answer to that: indoor tennis achievements need not be singled out with an asterisk as indoor tennis is as traditional as it comes, from the early days of tennis more than a century ago, and going back even longer to the Jeu de Paume played without a racket back in the misty French origins of this very English sport. Claycourts, on the other hand, are the new kid on the block and only as recent as our brave new world of plastics.
Yup, back in the days of Henry VIII, it was called ‘Real Tennis’. And it was played on wooden courts and was more like squash. I think, there are still original courts in England, and it’s still played. It’s called ‘Real Tennis’, btw, because it was a sport for royalty (real=royal). Only the plebs plays in clay pits.
@chloro, well I never……there I was thinking Rafa’s achievements were asterixed because he has been a royal pain in the butt (pun fully intended) to a certain GOAT………
#sensitive
#paranoid
littlefoot
royals and presumably gentry play on wood and the plebs on clay, Who then plays on plastics? (Ok, and who plays on concrete?)
And never mind grass, that’s an even newer new-comer. Definitely should be asterisked.
Indoor hard court is a newbie, at least as new as hard courts. So Fed has been winning most of his titles on new non traditional surfaces. .
The point made by Fed fans is that surfaces, tournaments, racket sizes, style of play etc derive legitimacy from Fed. History before Fed doesn’t count. Fed makes history.
History after Fed also won’t count.
Watch history being made i.e. watch Fed.
but clay is so … dirty … muddy … they say
and grass tends to turn into some dry clay …
not for those who want to keep their clothes pristine …
no matter the level of transparency …
while hardcourt is for the tough, the real players
and plastic is the nonesuch, the true mark
of the only one to make history
as hold thy serve judiciously remarked
plastic and hard are the hallmark
and grass his occasional diversion
of he who is history
everything else is for the hoi polloi
for the pretenders who will never be real
will never be royal will never be gentle will never be gentry
and the wind goes on blowing
through the non-hallowed grounds exposed to the elements
and the glory goes on reigning
in the hallowed halls where he-story plays
While Rafa’s clay court dominance should command respect and admiration, it has often been used to deride him, sometimes in the most deplorable ways. When people use the terms “mud-baller” or “dirt-baller,” they’re almost always using them in a negative context. Rafa’s the bricklayer, the construction worker, the gardener, the help, etc. Even when neutral terms such as “counter-puncher” are used, it’s frequently to criticize, rather than compliment. He’s repeatedly been called a “pusher,” which in most tennis circles, is used derisively. Even qualities that are normally admired in other athletes, such as superior fitness and endurance, have been used to criticize him (he’s a grinder, he outlasts his opponents, he wears them down rather than outplays them, ad nauseum). These kinds of criticisms do nothing to make the non-tennis fan attracted to the sport. They reinforce the notion among many that tennis is an elitist, exclusionary pastime and not meant as a sport for “real” athletes.
^^All because he dared expose the Emperor’s naked-ness………