The 2015 World Tour Finals will get started on Sunday afternoon with Novak Djokovic in action. London’s top seed is kicking off his bid for a fourth straight title against Kei Nishikori.
Novak Djokovic and Kei Nishikori will be squaring off for the seventh time in their careers when they contest the first round-robin match at the World Tour Finals on Sunday afternoon.
Djokovic leads the head-to-head series 4-2 after prevailing 6-3, 3-6, 6-1 earlier this season on the clay courts of Rome. They have faced each other three times on indoor hard courts, including twice last fall. Djokovic, who lost to Nishikori indoors at the 2011 Basel event, got the job done 6-2, 6-3 in Paris and 6-1, 3-6, 6-0 at the year-end championship. Their most memorable encounter came in the 2014 U.S. Open semifinals, with Nishikori pulling off a 6-4, 1-6, 7-6(4), 6-3 upset en route to a runner-up finish.
Hoping to wrap up a positively dominant season in appropriate fashion, Djokovic is storming into London on a 22-match winning streak and with an overall record of 78-5 for the season. The Serb won three Grand Slams, six Masters 1000 titles, and a 500-pointer in Beijing. He is coming off a triumph in Paris, where the top seed ousted three fellow World Tour Finals competitors in the process (Tomas Berdych, Stan Wawrinka, and Andy Murray).
Nishikori has no such momentum heading into the last tournament of 2015. Although the Japanese star is an outstanding 53-14 for the year, he is 2-3 in his last five matches dating back to the Tokyo final (lost to Benoit Paire). Nishikori then dropped his second tilt in both Shanghai and Paris. At the latter event, he retired against Richard Gasquet due to a back problem while trailing 7-6(3), 4-1. The world No. 8 insisted it was a precautionary move, but it is always cause for concern when he is dealing with any kind of physical issue.
This is Nishikori’s second straight appearance in London, where he preceded his 2014 semifinal loss to Djokovic with a 2-1 round-robin record. Djokovic, meanwhile, is the three-time defending champion and has won four World Tour Finals overall. The world No. 1 is 14-0 at this tournament since losing to countryman Janko Tipsarevic back in 2011.
Pick: Djokovic in 2 losing 7 games or fewer
[polldaddy poll=9177528]
Nishikori is obviously winning this 0 and 0.
As far as I am concerned Nole Djokovic won”t lose a match in this tournament. He is as sharp as a tack, he has more stamina than all players, he is in the greatest shape in his career.
Nishikori has health problems and if his movement is Questionable, he will lose his most powerful weapon.
Djokovic in straight sets losing 7 fames or fewer.
http://site.forumul-pariorului-maniac.ro/
agreed
Thank you and congatulations for your beautiful articles and for your really love for tennis. 🙂
So it’s all a waste of time if we know who the winner is. Not everyone wants to enhance their performance by lying in a pod.
nothing prevents the others from lying in a pod to enhance their performance.
As I said, not everyone WANTS to.
yeah right…
Well we don’t even know whether the others lie in a pod or not let alone whether they want to.
Nishikori not doing a bad job at all
GOAT!!!!!
If a player is not fit he should withdraw instead of short changing the spectators. I think these guys get paid for every match even if they lose so no doubt Nishikori is earning some pocket money.
Oh snap mary. BTW where are you from?
Not from where RITB is!!!
Mary (at 5:29 pm),
.
Nishi earned $95,000 today.
Thanks Augusta, you are amazing!
Nishi should have pulled out if he’s compromised by injury. His next two matches especially vs berdy will give a better indication of his former because fed can blow him off an indoor court too.
A lot of UEs into the net from kei todei.
hawkeys, as you rightly said we can gauge nishi’s form after his matches with Fed and Berdy.
Djoko claims he did not allow nishi to play his game. I think though that Djoko is suffering from hubris like Fed in the weak era. Can’t blame them though. If your opponents keel over and die when you so much as breathe on them you can be excused if you think you are God. Weak eras are boring and the Gods of the weak era are insufferable till brought down to earth by Nemesis.
Yes, far too many UEs from Kei. He as trying to be aggressive but just couldn’t pull it off as he kept missing.
I got to see highlights of this one on the tennis channel. Didn’t miss much. Not having seen the whole match, I can’t give an opinion as to whether it was Nishi having some issue or Novak just being that good.
If he really does have an injury then I would have wished for him to withdraw. I don’t think $95,000 is going to break him. It’s not good tennis to watch someone who is not physically okay and can’t really play his best.
I don’t know if Novak is suffering from hubris or not. He can be arrogant at times, but so can Fed. Neither guy is that appealing in that regard. If Novak wants to feel that he is the reason Nishi didn’t play well, then so be it. Fed can be the exact same way.
I still do not think winning three slams and being one win away from the calendar slam and also winning six Masters slams, is all because the other players just laid down and let Novak roll over them. He deserves credit for what he has done.
solid post….. novak deserves MASSIVE credit for he has done… he has been playing at an exceptionally high level since the beginning of the year…no dips ! phenomenal to say the least.
Only rafa can stop his scary progress.
vamosrafa,
Yes! We need Rafa back at his best to take it to Novak! That’s what I hope will happen in 2016. But there is no way that I am going to dismiss what Novak has done this year. I also know that Rafa has given him full credit for what he’s done. Why? Because Rafa would know better than anyone what it takes to do it!
Dont agree. Novak certainly had dips. His match vs Stan and Murray at AO, his match vs Dolgo, vs Klizan etc and etc. To say he didnt have dips is in fact inflating his level. He was just fit enough physically and steady enough mentally to weather all storm
Also to say that only Rafa can stop his scary progress is in fact also trying to inflate what Rafa can do. We just dont know whether Rafa can be that good or not, going forward, so we have to wait and see what Rafa brings to the table.
You missed the point native.
You seemed to miss the point vr but came up with the last sentence which shows you know what makes a weak era, the absence of an equal or a near equal for a great player. Till recently there were actually four super players who rose above the field but this year there is only one. Virtually all the slams and Masters were won by these 4 in the last 7-8 years but there has been some slackening of their grip since 2014. This year there is only Djoko. No wonder he feels he is invincible . In his mind the other three are not less than before, he has become better and is not allowing them to play their game. This could have been believed if they had still monopolized all the semis and finals as in the past but had lost only when faced by Djoko. But we know that’s not the case.
I feel the law of probability has to kick in sometime. How long can there be a drought of rivals from the next generation? Just as Fed suddenly became invincible, one of the super talented young guys might be able to suddenly be the ONE.
Though looking at WTA, it does seem as if the law has been temporarily suspended!!
no, I am not missing the point here. You are clearly missing the point here with your endless ‘weak era’ arguments and refusing to give credit to a player who is having arguably the best year ever in tennis. I have a balanced viewpoint here so not missing any point. I know his top rival has been missing but I also acknowledge how damn good he has been day in day out.
YOU are clearly missing the other side. I don’t have time right now to write a very long post to try to explain that. May be some other time.
#BYOAT
very very hard to argue against that…. the only thing he could not manage is winning slams on three different surfaces…..only rafa was able to do that in 2010 but novak has had unprecedented dominance in other aspects.
The six masters counts big time.
If by unprecedented dominance in other aspects you mean his dominance in masters, then I would say Fed in 2005 and 2006 was having the same kind of dominance. Do remember, Fed in 2005 had won four Masters but he only played five in total – skipping Rome, Canada, Madrid and Paris. Also Masters finals were BO5 back then and there were no bye for R1. So effectively in 2005 he won 80% of the Masters that he played. In 2006 he also won four, reached the finals of two clay Masters played losing to none other than the clay court wiz kid Nadal. He skipped Rome and Paris that year.
Rafa OTOH had dominance over the clay Masters year after year for a good eight out of nine years from 2005-2013. He’s the clay ‘Goat’
Luckystar, your memory is right on the mark. Wish masters were still best of 5. They were a tougher test and bigger feat than they are now.
Yes he is the clay GOAT.
However, Fed doesn’t get bonus points for BYOAT because he missed a ton of Masters.
That makes no sense.
Rafa is the Clay Goat, no question. Nothing like him ever. The masters have changed in degree of difficulty. Did you watch tennis when they were BO5 without a R1 bye?
It’s still a great accomplishment to win a master’s level tournament, but not like it used to be. Furthermore, it does make (best ever) lists a flaky sort of sport fantasy game when lumping decades together.
I’ve been watching tennis long before many (not all) here.
25 of Fed’s wins in 2006 were in Non masters ATP events compared to just nine by Nole.
Nole was 68-3 in slam and masters level tournaments this year heading into WTF.
In 2006, heading into WTF, Fed was 61-4 in slam and masters events.
Fed ran up his W-L in smaller tournaments by comparison.
2015 is much more impressive than 2006 when Blake, Davydenko and Ljubicic were Top 5.
Winning a greater number of Masters with the final BO3 is even more impressive because of the increased chance of an upset. Less upsets in BO5.
Who said I was debating Novak Djokovic and Roger Federer? I’m agreeing with Luckystar’s memory and the difference in degree in difficulty winning masters titles now that they are BO3 with a R1 bye.
But since you brought it up, both subjective and objective data with which you measure Blake, Davydenko, and the great Ivan Ljubicic just might be affected by dodgy numbers and recollection. Wait a decade and look back at some of the names that have occupied a place in the top ten in recent years. Also, see how many names appear less than their potential by the majestic domination of Djokovic, Federer, Nadal. It’s ever so lame to throw out names from the past which will appear diminished by the reign of a dominant legend.
To a real tennis fan it’s craziness.
As I said, it’s more difficult due to bigger chance of upset in a BO3 final. Please read more carefully.
To a Fed fan, it’s craziness to suggest a weak era in 2006. Understandable though.
How many slams did Blake, Ljubicic and Davy have combined?
This year’s top five are all multiple grand slam winners.
Since you like to assume a lot about posters you don’t know, allow me. Let me guess, you have an agenda and that drives you more than loving tennis when you post on a tennis blog. Certainly does drive a need to accuse without thought. As I said. Think more carefully.
What upset when BO5 only in the final? Also there are no bye in R1 so more matches to be played so more chances of upset in the early rounds.
Fed played 97 matches in 2006 and only suffered 5 losses, you think that’s worse than playing 82 matches and losing 5?? What about his 2005? He lost four matches, two at slams, one at Masters and one at YEC.
Like I said, there’re no first round bye and finals were BO5 so even when Fed missed some Masters, he wasnt playing much fewer matches at the Masters – 37 matches in 7 Masters in 2006 with finals in BO5 vs Novak’s 40 matches in 8 Masters.
So you think its easier to win a BO5 final? And what upset you’re talking about when its the final??
“What upset when BO5 only in the final? ”
I don’t even know what that means.
And that early extra round against some qualifier is not the same as comparing the chances of an upset in a B03 vs BO5 final.
In 2006, after US Open Fed won five matches to win Madrid Masters after a 1st round bye. In 2015, after US Open Nole won Shanghai and Paris winning five matches each after 1st round byes. Advantage Novak.
In 2006, Roger won Montreal in six matches and lost second round of Cincy. In 2015 Novak won Montreal and Cincy with 10 match wins. Advantage Novak
In 2006, Roger lost Rome and Monte Carlo with 10 match wins and two losses (to Rafa). In 2015, Novak won Rome and Monte Carlo. Slight edge to Nole.
In 2006, Roger won IW and Miami in 12 matches facing Blake and Ljubicic in the finals and didn’t face a top 5 player in either tournament.
In 2015, Nole won IW and Miami in 10 matches beating No. 4 and No. 2 in IW and No. 4 in Miami. Advantage Nole.
No, it’s more effort to win BO5 but there is less of a chance of an upset.
How do you know for a fact that there is less chance of an upset? Link, please?
To name a few, recent BO3 finals where lower ranked player beat higher ranked player which could have gone the other way if it was BO5….
2009:
Madrid Switzerland Roger Federer Spain Rafael Nadal 6–4, 6–4
Shanghai Russia Nikolay Davydenko Spain Rafael Nadal 7–6(7–3), 6–3
2010:
Indian Wells Croatia Ivan Ljubičić United States Andy Roddick 7–6(7–3), 7–6(7–5)
Miami United States Andy Roddick Czech Republic Tomáš Berdych 7–5, 6–4
2011:
Miami Serbia Novak Djokovic Spain Rafael Nadal 4–6, 6–3, 7–6(7–4)
2014:
Monte Carlo Switzerland Stan Wawrinka Switzerland Roger Federer 4–6, 7–6(7–5), 6–2
Toronto France Jo-Wilfried Tsonga Switzerland Roger Federer 7–5, 7–6(7–3)
When you can reach a Masters final, its no longer an upset when you beat your opponent who happens to be higher ranked than you.
Anyone who knows anything about tennis and why slams are values over masters knows that one of the main reasons that slams are valued more (other than prestige and history) is because it is BO5 and less chances for upset.
But here, let me educate you (i.e., spoon feed)..
“Over best-of-five, the better player usually brings his superiority, there’s a regression to the mean, etc. Over best-of-three, a player can get hot for an hour and — poof — there’s your upset.”
http://www.si.com/tennis/2012/03/28/masters-mailbag
“But winning doesn’t have to be so difficult for one of tennis’s all-time greats and her top rivals. While women play best of three sets at Grand Slams, the men play best of five. That means male stars have more chances to exert their superiority over opponents and the opportunity to stage hard-fought comebacks even after falling behind by two sets. Generally in sports, the longer the contest, the greater the chance the favorite prevails. Novak Djokovic and Andy Murray have each come back from losing the first two sets at Grand Slams this year; Rafael Nadal has come back from trailing by two sets to one.”
http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/serena-williams-grand-slam-us-open-best-of-five-sets/
#DropTheMic
#YoureWelcome
Hawkeye, Novak didnt win at Montreal and Cincy 2015.
The Ljuby and Blake of 2006, well, they’d beaten the no.3 Nalby and no.2 Nadal to get there to face Fed at Miami and IW respectively. Not Fed’s fault that both Nalby and Nadal couldnt get there to face him!
In 2006, the Ljuby-Blakey-Davy Trio
In 2006, Davy didn’t make it past the 4th round in any slam, Ljuby made one semi and one quarter, and Blake made one quarter.
In 2015, a suffering Rafa made two slam quarters(better than Davy or Blake), Wawrinka WON a slam and made two semis. Take your pick of Fed or Muzza for the three spot: Fed made two finals and a quarter amd Murray made a final and two semis.
No comparison between 2015’s Top 5 and the Weak Era’s 2006 Top 5.
You cannot be serious.
My goodness me, Hawkeye. Nothing wrong with speculating about BO3 having more chance of an upset than BO5.. More chance of an upset because there are more BO3 on the calendar? But, but, but. There isn’t a link to prove it to tennis minds on the internet. Ask a tennis player currently in the ATP top ten which is harder mentally, physically, and more prestigious. There are a couple old enough in the top 100 to remember BO5 masters. Or ask Ljubicic, Nalbandian, Safin, Kolya what was more difficult. I’ll give you a hint: I am a Novak fan if it makes such a difference to anyone here, but not OTT. His dominance makes me smile. His 2015 is a sight to behold. You won’t get an argument from me there. I don’t need a list of best ever’s to know Novak is a legend. I respect all of them but defend tennis more than fan centered narratives.
The lack of BO5 on the calendar could be another contributing factor to younger, less ranked players winning a BO3 master’s match, but it sure isn’t helping them be adequately or properly fit for the Grand Shalams.
One of the dime a dozen ex-pat Fed fans jumped ship (or bandwagon) to the Nole train, no doubt.
Novak is on record as saying that Masters are more difficult to win regardless of BO3 or BO5.
And here I thought we’d be friends, hawkeye. I love Nole, no matter what you think – Rafa and Roger too. Enjoy the Rafa/Wawrinka match now.
i will
Wish I was there too!
Hawkeye your argument is flawed. No doubt the top five this year are all grand slam holders but…only Stan and Novak have won slams this year! Fed last won in 2012, Murray 2013. Only Rafa has won more recently, in 2014.
Its just like in 2005 for example, Fed, Rafa, Roddick and Hewitt were top four and all were slam holders and Agassi was no.7 that year, holder of 8 slams. However, only Fed and Rafa among the top four or five had won slams that year; Safin at no.12 won the AO. Ferrero, another slam holder was no.17.
It just happened that those who played well during those years were slam holders but other years they didnt play well to be in the top 5 or top 10. The last time when the top four were the ones winning at the slams was in 2012, but one of them just played for half a season!
Regardless, lucky, no it is not flawed because Ljuby-Davy-Blakey weren’t even slam contenders. Ever. And we are comparing the two groups.
Now it is you that’s arguing just for the sake of it.
Didnt the top five in 2005 consist of slam holders too? In 2006, Fed and Rafa were still the top 2 and Roddick dropped to no.6. Blake and Ljuby happened to play well that year to reach top five, its just like Ferrer played well enough to reach no.3 in 2013, slam or no slam, or slamless Berdych sometimes was in top 5. Its not like Blake and Ljuby were consistently in the top four or five, during Fed’s reign as no.1 from 2004-2007.
Exactly ratcliff. Slams are more difficult to win because they’re BO5. BO3 matches can have more upsets, however, if a player is good enough to reach the Masters final, ie he has weathered all storms to get there, he beating an opponent of a higher rank in the final is no longer an upset imo.
Upsets usually happen in the earlier rounds when top players can be more vulnerable. We’re comparing Fed vs Novak at the Masters finals but most of the times, their opponents in the finals were the top few players, so to me BO3 finals were comparatively easier to win than BO5 esp when on clay (Rome 2006 final for example when it lasted 5+hours and so both finalists had to skip the next Masters that happened to be in the following week).
Excuse me, but I absolutely got right to the point! I have been watching this sport long enough to be able to understand the dynamics of what is happening.
I don’t happen to believe that Fed’s achievements should be diminished because of this so-called weak era. When you watch his matches back then, you can clearly see the quality of his tennis. He distanced himself from the field and there were some really good players at that time. Safin was probably one of the more naturally talented and gifted players at that time. It did take him playing his best to beat Fed at the 2005 AO and stop his 26 game winning streak. Hewitt was no slouch. Roddick had potential but had this mental block with Fed whenever he would meet him in matches. Nalbandian was another extremely talented player. The fact that these guys never reached their potential may well have had a lot to do with coming up against Fed. But that doesn’t mean that they should be dismissed outright.
This era is much more competitive. I don’t believe that one can suddenly say that it’s a weak era because of one year. The absence of Rafa playing his best, does not by definition mean that what Novak has done means less.
Let’s put it this way. What if it was Rafa who dominated this year and was the one who came within one win of getting the calendar slam and won six Masters titles? Am I to believe that any Rafa fan here would step up and say – but Novak wasn’t at his best, Murray couldn’t beat him, neither could Fed. Therefore Rafa won because it was a weak year! Really? You want to go there? That argument can be turned on its head and then where are we?
What about when Rafa did dominate in 2010? Is any Rafa fan here prepared to say that this was a weak year? That his opponents just weren’t good enough?
Sorry, but you can’t have it both ways.
‘Let’s put it this way. What if it was Rafa who dominated this year and was the one who came within one win of getting the calendar slam and won six Masters titles? Am I to believe that any Rafa fan here would step up and say – but Novak wasn’t at his best, Murray couldn’t beat him, neither could Fed. Therefore Rafa won because it was a weak year! Really? You want to go there? That argument can be turned on its head and then where are we?’
Haha….no, they’ll never think of it that way.
NNY, I was ABOUT to give 2010 as an example and I just saw you have done that.
Well, if a novak fans comes and says rafa was lucky in 2010 because : Novak had not peaked , andy was yet to win a slam, fed was not a this best (losing to soderling at RG, berdych at wimbledon) ??!!
So, for years as dominant as rafa’s 2010 or novak’s 2011/2015, a combination of both factors has to occur. It is a pity that rafa was not there to challenge novak so that IS definitely a factor , but one slam where rafa would definitely have beaten him is RG and he already lost there anyway.
Overall, i think both factors are at play. Competition not as strong as it could have been but novak has been near-invincible all year. Too damn good and rafa used the word ‘invincible’ as well. No rocket science.
6 masters 1000s, as hawkeye also pointed out, is tooo big.
I am hopeful rafa will improve and take his game to another level for 2016.
If only I could understand the necessity of bashing Rafans by ‘true/real tennis fans’.
it’s a pity you are still stuck with feeling like a victim and claiming to be bashed by ‘rea/tennis fans’. Nothing else to say!
November 16, 2015 at 2:41 pm
—it’s a pity you are still stuck with feeling like a victim and claiming to be bashed by ‘rea/tennis fans’.—
===
.
What??? You constructed AGAIN a fantasy story about ME! I didn’t write a word about ME @7:17 am! 😆
vamosrafa,
You went a bit further than I did about 2010. It’s funny because I was just going to come back here and add those additional details. Novak at that time was not the player that he was now. This was before Novak 2.0. So are we to say that Rafa’s victory over him at the USO means any less? As you said, Murray had not yet even won a slam. In 2010, Fed was starting to show the first chinks in his armor with those two losses in slams. The signs of aging were just beginning to show.
As you said, one cannot dismiss outright that Novak’s biggest rival was in a slump all year. I will acknowledge that. I guess the argument is that a Rafa playing at his best would have made sure that Novak did not win three slams. But then one has to acknowledge the weaker competition in 2010.
As I said, you cannot have it both ways. So I will agree about the weaker competition, while still giving Novak full credit for what he did in 2015. The fact is Rafa wasn’t at his best and couldn’t challenge him. That’s the sport, as Rafa himself would say. 🙂
true that! Novak’s been playing at an incredible level. If rafa can start playing his best tennis, he will not let novak dominate like this. For now, it is what it is. Novak’s country miles apart from the field, including Rafa.
vr and native, you guys just don’t get the conceptual model. Besides it is like arguing with x and echo!
I get it though. Rafa is the best!
vamosrafa says:
November 16, 2015 at 2:01 am
“Well, if a novak fans comes and says rafa was lucky in 2010 because : Novak had not peaked , andy was yet to win a slam, fed was not a this best (losing to soderling at RG, berdych at wimbledon) ??!!”
*************************
That’s a completely bogus argument. It’s like going “back to the future”.
never heard you say the same for all references to ‘weak era’ dominated by Federer?!
Double standards galore.
This is not a bogus argument AT ALL. It is putting things into perspective and is no different than offering opinions on why Djokovic is so dominant at the moment.
When Fed was prospering in the week era, there were no Nadal, Djokovic or Murray on the senior tour, they were still playing junior tournaments. In 2010 when Nadal was dominating and in 2008, Federer, Djokovic and Murray were on the tour and doing well, yet Nadal was able to dominate. This year, one of Djokovic’s toughest opponents Nadal, so Djokovic has had a bit of a free ride.
vamosrafa,
I agree! There’s nothing bogus about that argument. But when you have no other answer then all you can do is run down another person’s point of view.
It is absolutely true that one can say Rafa’s 2010 was due to a weak era. But that’s because some here are trying to say it about Novak in 2015.
You cannot have it both ways. It’s not going back to the future. It’s using a past great year from Rafa to illustrate the absurdity of trying to run down what Novak has done. I simply turned this rather sad attempt to demean Novak’s record this year by using examples of another great year from Rafa. If you want to nitpick then you get yourself into a tough position.
‘In 2010 when Nadal was dominating and in 2008, Federer, Djokovic and Murray were on the tour and doing well..’
tch tch …. on the tour and doing well….. sorry, doing well has no place in these arguments. Djokovic was far from his peak in 2008 and he also nowhere ready to win slams consistently in 2010.. Murray was just a ‘talent’ and was good at winning best of three sets matches ….he did beat rafa in USO 08 but rafa was pretty spent back then..
Do you realize that for rafa even ‘doing well’ would NOT have been sufficient to beat this nole? rafa was doing PRETTY well in 2011 but he was defeated by djokovic even on clay with relative ease? Do you know why?
Rafa has to be either at his absolute best or close to his best to beat this nole because not only does he have to match nole’s tennis level but he also needs to overcome the matchup issue! Novak is a terrible matchup for him. It is time you can realize such things, may be? Just like rafa is a terrible match up for fed, nole is for rafa but rafa has done incredibly well to overcome him on many big occasions but you do now djokovic has clawed his way back to literally levelling their head to head when it was once 16-4 in rafa’s favor? That was the time when rafa was a beast and novak was not in his peak. Now rafa’s struggling and nole’s in his peak. Rafa can, and I believe he will, fight with him in 2016 and I do believe he will have to play perhaps even better than his 2013 level to excel on hard courts against Novak.
Well said nadline.