By Henk Abbink
World No. 2 Novak Djokovic was named World Champion by the International Tennis Federation.
The ITF claims the selection of its senior World Champions follows “an objective system that considers all results during the year, but gives special weight to the Grand Slam tournaments and two ITF international team competitions, Davis Cup by BNP Paribas and Fed Cup by BNP Paribasâ€.
So what’s terribly wrong with this picture and so-called ‘objective system’? Despite having won less than Rafa Nadal and ending the year as
World No. 2, the ITF handed the World Champion title to Novak.
ITF Chairman Mr. Ricci Bitti’s explanation for their choice: “Rafael Nadal made a remarkable comeback from injury with two Grand Slam wins, but it is Novak Djokovic’s consistent results across all four Slams, Davis Cup and the ATP World Tour Finals that see him named World Champion.â€
So, the world governing body of tennis snubbed World No. 1 Rafael Nadal and the rightful World Champion, who won more titles (10 vs 7) more matches (75 vs 74), more Grand Slams (2 vs 1) and more Masters (5 vs 2). Sounds real ‘objective’ to me
YOU CAN’T BE SERIOUS!
Want to know/read more about the ‘objective system’ the ITF adopts in their choice of World Champions? Then surf to http://www.itftennis.com/news/163361.aspx#uxrWwVRaKbxIiUMk.99
"Consistent results at slams..."
BoDu · December 20, 2013 at 10:41 am
It can be argued that Nadal has a too big hole in his resume to be declared World Champion for 2013: he lost in the first round of Wimbledon and skipped Australian Open so has done NOTHING in HALF of the slams.
Mitch · December 20, 2013 at 11:02 am
I doubt Rafa is losing any sleep over this.
CS3 · December 20, 2013 at 12:51 pm
Knowledgeable & objective Tennis Fans/media members know which player had the best 2013 & is this year’s REAL WORLD CHAMPION… That player is the current World’s #1-END OF STORY! Vamos Rafa!
Scoop Malinowski · December 20, 2013 at 1:19 pm
Have to take Bodu’s side on this, Rafa has two big fat goose eggs in majors, Djokovic was a contender in all four and he won year end WTF. It’s a somewhat controversial call by the ITF but logical and not unfair. Rafa and Uncle Toni will not complain, though Rafa’s supporters will.
Andrew Miller · December 20, 2013 at 1:24 pm
Rafa gets the goat consideration but not best on all surfaces. That is djoko I think. Becker will help djoko be less selfish and even it out for everyone next year by playing with a puma racquet from Becker’s old estusa bag.
Dan Markowitz · December 20, 2013 at 1:24 pm
Kind of side with Mitch on this…don’t think Rafa cares, but Rafa had if not the better season, the most successful one. You win two slams and more Masters titles, and the other guy wins one slam and you beat him 2-0 in slam finals, of course, Rafa had the better year.
Gaurang · December 20, 2013 at 2:48 pm
Since ITF gives more weights to Grand Slams and Davis Cup, its obvious that the winner would be Novak over Rafa.
Rafa’s points in grand slams = 2000 + 2000 + 10 + 0 = 4,010
Novak’s points in grand slams = 2000 + 1200 + 1200 + 720 = 5,120
Thats a 1120 point difference right there.
Rafa’s davis cup points: 5
Novak’s davis cup points: 460
Thats a huge gap.
So its obvious that Novak is the better player for the year, given the metrics used here. After all, in the overall points for the year, Novak is just 770 points behind Nadal, which he would leap over if you give more weight to Grand Slams and davis cup.
Andrew Miller · December 20, 2013 at 3:26 pm
Rafa with lendls Adidas frame vs. Djokovic with the puma : this matchup determines the winner. Both racquets must be factory strung with the cheap nylon stuff. Vibrasorb optional. No tournagrips allowed (sorry Vic Braden !). Fake leather welcome. Diy stencil welcome.
Henk · December 20, 2013 at 4:04 pm
Yeah right BoDu, Scoop and Gaurang! Let”s also snub the ATP ranking and go for this really ‘objective’ ITF point system. Let”s punish the guys that are injured and cannot participate at an ITF event like the Australian Open and complain about the inconsiderate planning of the Davis’ Cup. Especially if they end the year as World No. 1
Dan and Mitch: absolutely agree that Rafa will not be losing any sleep over this (neither will I), but it just shows how politics take over from the sport.
CS3 · December 20, 2013 at 4:13 pm
Spin things however you will, Rafa’s year was better… TITLES AT THE GRAND SLAMS/MASTERS 1000 SERIES EVENTS tell the story… Rafa won more of those BY FAR than any other player including Novak Djokovic… I have no problem with Novak getting the reward based on the most consistent results over the entire season however… As for the goose eggs Rafa had in a couple of slams which Wimbledon does stick out as a real failure, he didn’t even play in Melbourne so that shouldn’t be focused on… Also, I think it’s very unfactual to call Novak the GOAT all surface wise & better all around than Rafa when only 1 of them has a CAREER GRAND SLAM & multiple slam titles on every surface… FACTS don’t lie & that’s what I base my views on… Be refreshing if more fans, commentators & writers did as well!
Scoop Malinowski · December 20, 2013 at 4:14 pm
Henk why do you think the politics are against Rafa and for Djokovic? What possible explanation for this, if this is the handiwork of political machinations?
Andrew Miller · December 20, 2013 at 4:23 pm
Ok settle it then by wood frames. Nadal gets Borg’s donnay and djoko gets macs Dunlop. Make it a msg event. Winner gets bragging rights . let the guys practice for a week with the woods.
You know this could be the fifth slam. The wood racquet challenge.
Gaurang · December 20, 2013 at 4:24 pm
Guys these are not “subjective” rankings — they mentioned it was objective. They probably have some points assigned to each event, just like ATP, but with a higher multiple for Grand Slams and Davis Cup. Whatever comes out with highest points wins — is my guess.
Nadal did not compete in AO — that means he get ZERO points for that, as though he lost in the first round.
People dont get “sympathy points” in an objective system for skipping events due to injury. In a subjective opinion, you could consider that, but in an objective point based system, skipping a grand slam is ZERO points, period.
Henk · December 20, 2013 at 4:24 pm
CS3: You’re spot on!
Scoop: Do I really need to explain that to somebody who knows exactly how things work in the boxing world. You really find it necessary to have an ATP no.1 and an ITF no.1 based on different point systems? Shouldn’t the world governing body be rewarding the year-end World No.1 or are we to promote ITF ranking politics and not tennis?
Andrew Miller · December 20, 2013 at 4:35 pm
Rafa got a zero a t Wimbledon. That is bad. You can have the best hard court season in history without being the years mos t consistent player. Nadal doesn’t care but let’s be honest about his indoor record – he doesn’t care much for it and nadal would much rather get a 2nd Aussie title than go all out indoors. To me it is smart – play somewhat worse indoors , no pressure environment , come Australian open pro e you are worlds best player again. Meanwhile everyone who tried indoors is huffing and puffing down under because they took indoors too seriously.
I love Rotterdam. But let’s face it , few recall Gilbert and Hlasek making hay there. Nadals life is about becoming goat. To do that he needs to slack in the fall . no one thinks about Blake’s run to the 06 ATP wtf finals . they wonder why he never got his act together on grass or got a slam semi.
Dan markowitz · December 20, 2013 at 5:18 pm
I think Blake got only 2 slam quarters maybe 3 and never did well in Europe except in Stockholm. Blake was the ultimate feel good player. I can’t remember him ever in a big match coming from behind and winning.
Andrew Miller · December 20, 2013 at 5:46 pm
When Blake was on, essentially only Federer beat him (during Blake’s prime period, from post US Open 2005 to end of 2006). Blake’s 2008 win on Federer was real, but it was during the 2nd worst year for Federer since 2003 (this year, 2013, is the worst for Federer since 2003 and tops 2008 as a bad Fed year). Watching his matches was nerve-wrecking: beating even a top 200 player was never a given. His biographer/co-author Andrew Friedman basically said the same thing. He was also very uncomfortable at the #1 U.S. spot – you could tell with his deference to Roddick. Roddick was always #1 in spirit, heart and soul. Blake was the junior member, even at the higher ranking. Probably comes down to what Rafter said to him. Should have beat me. Just didnt believe it.
More than any player I can remember Blake snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. Blake will say that his high risk game was the only game to play. But it comes out sounding an awful lot like a justification for playing unsound ball out there.
Andrew Miller · December 20, 2013 at 5:48 pm
And Dan’s right – you put Blake in a high-stakes five set match. Blake’s five set record tells the rest of the story. Don’t get me wrong, great player. Clearly the 2nd best U.S. player since Agassi’s retirement in 2006 – Isner, Querrey have yet to touch him (Blake gets the nod over Fish b/c of the win column, even though I think Fish’s game was more solid).
Dan markowitz · December 20, 2013 at 6:02 pm
Blake was a better player than Fish until the last two years and then I’d say Fish surpassed Blake’s best play. I like watching Blake, but in his head he always thought he was better than Hewitt who he came up with, but Blake just wasn’t at that level. Now he did start beating Vince at the end of V’s line, but Vince owned Blake mostly.
CS3 · December 20, 2013 at 6:07 pm
There’s something to be said about Rafa pacing himself & not going all out during the indoor hardcourt season… Credit to Novak who played LIGHTS OUT, VERY SOUND TENNIS & earned his achievements at the end of the 2013 season… Rafa though has his sights on the overall BIG PRIZE… Another Australian Open title goes a long way in cementing the argument for him being the true GOAT… He’d be the 1st player in the true modern era to be a career double grand slam champion… Of course, “The Rocket” Rod Laver accomplished that tremendous & very rare feat during the 1960s… Another Wimbledon, which looks to be less likely for Rafa these days, would also do the trick IMO because he’d become THE ONLY PLAYER ever to have at least 3 grand slam titles on every surface… Let the era of: Rafa, Novak & hopefully Andy Murray continue as us fans/lovers of the sport should be in for a treat!!
Scoop Malinowski · December 20, 2013 at 6:34 pm
I still think of Blake’s fantastic run to the WTF finals and #4 in the world. Blake was an elite player but he just couldn’t crack the code of the top class. Hewitt came up long before Blake, Hewitt was just sixteen when he won his first title, he came up so fast. Blake went to Harvard first and was a late bloomer. If you remember there infamous US match, Hewitt was already the established star, Blake was the young gun up and comer. They did not come up together.
Scoop Malinowski · December 20, 2013 at 6:41 pm
Blake has said that going for it was his style. His nature. He said he was aware of all the criticism and experts and fans calling for him to play more conservatively and smarter and he even tried to play that way but it just didn’t work for him. You have to just trust Blake knew how to play and he played the way that was the most successful for him. Blake is a very smart guy, he knows how to play. I think him getting as far as he did and to #4 is a massive overachievement, considering he came up from Harvard and his first US Open match as a wildcard was an abysmal l6l6l6 loss to Chris Woodruff. Blake had fantastic career, his achieved far more than anyone expected. For him to beat Nadal and Federer and Agassi as he did was phenomenal but I guess it also created higher expectations that were really unrealistic. Blake = great player, great career despite only having a Davis Cup and ten minor singles titles to show for it.
Dan Markowitz · December 20, 2013 at 7:27 pm
Blake had either played Hewitt in the juniors or in the Futures or Challengers. Blake’s pro record against Hewitt was abysmal, 1-8. I remember when I went up to the 1999 Davis Cup tie between the USA and Australia. Hewitt and Rafter vs Martin and Courier, for some reason, Sampras only played doubles with Alex O’Brien, the Americans only victory. Blake was a practice partner and the matches were held at the Longwood Country Club in Boston. And I remember a conversation I had with Blake where he said that he had beaten or come close to beating the then-18 yr old Hewitt earlier in their careers.
That was the tie when John F. Kennedy Jr. died in a plane crash off Martha’s Vineyard and I muttered under my breath watching Todd Martin play that is was like watching grass grow and a woman behind me got really upset that I would disparage big Todd. What can I say, the guy had a boring plodding game.
Andrew Miller · December 20, 2013 at 7:53 pm
Blake was the 2nd best u.s. player and about #4 Davis cup player since agassi’s retirement. Given that Davis cup play says a lot about your game under pressure I’d have to put blake a bit lower on the depth chart and say yeah he overachieved. That isn’t a knock on him only that probably should not have expected a slam semifinal from him.
Ginepri is probably the underachiever of the last decade in u.s. tennis – a big u.s. semifinal followed by not much and we are 8 years out. We are 7 years beyond Blake’s best year. We are two years beyond fish. 4 years post roddicks best tennis.
Scoops boot camp couldn’t come any sooner !
All that said no reason to lament. Annacone is with Sloane Stephens so we will at least have a new u.s. women’s champ. Maybe the u.s. players will practice more and play less paintball and well have a new u.s. men’s player to celebrate.
My money still says a bunch of them will get top 50. That should be good for at least round three of slams.
Andrew Miller · December 20, 2013 at 8:06 pm
I’d also say Blake didn’t improve much as a player since his us open qf with agassi. That was probably the biggest knock on his game . I am critical of Blake because seeing how fast he was and how hard he hit his forehand and the fact he could volley – he was definitely worth the top five. But he cursed the grass , had reason to fear the clay , and really struggled under the big lights against top players. He got no masters title. He owned nadal until nadal beat him then never looked back. Federer owned him. The big players like Tsonga knew how to play him. Fact is that in best of five sets blake wasn’t a top five player. He was a top 20 player. No shame – best u.s. player since roddick since 2005. But nonetheless we couldn’t expect blake to do more because he struggled when stakes were the highest. Not everyone makes it into the very top tier and that goes for fish too.
Gaurang · December 20, 2013 at 8:50 pm
Agree to all what you guys say. But one thing is Blake played entertaining tennis. He used to play aggressive, and was “very” fun to watch. Going for his shots almost on every point. I dont know why but I used to like his single-handed backhand too — he used to hit flat and firm, and often won points off that wing too.
I havent followed him through his career — but whenever I watched him, I just found him awesome. Thats why i added him to my “players I miss most” list.
Even Fish was aggressive, but not as much as Blake, and I found Blake significantly more enjoyable to watch than Fish.
Andrew Miller · December 20, 2013 at 9:56 pm
True enough. At this rate we will all miss Taylor Dent. Scoop boot camp we are counting on you.
Mitch · December 20, 2013 at 11:28 pm
Unfair to call Ginepri an underachiever; the US Open semi was a big overachievement.
CS3 · December 21, 2013 at 12:15 am
James Blake was a very gifted player who had the physical tools to be among the Top 3 in the world if not higher… Like many other Top 10 players with talent, he lacked the mental belief that he truly belonged at the top level & that he could beat the world’s best in the most important matches… The guy made for some very entertaining, epic type matches with none being better that the MEMORABLE, CLASSIC US Open 5 setter he had with Andre Agassi some years back… Blake was a tremendous ball striker… 1 of those players that makes you think, what might have been?
Tom Michael · December 21, 2013 at 12:32 am
I liked Blake’s talent. He could hit a great forehand and move super fast. But he played with no plan B after hitting his forehand as hard as possible failed. If he just looped the ball for a change.
I am a huge Rafa fan but I have to agree with the ITF on calling Novak world champion. He had the most consistent results in the slams, davis cup, which warrants him being the winner. I am surprised that it factors in the ATP tour final, but I guess since 2000 when the ITF and ATP merged on the tournament, it does.
Novak played a lot of Davis Cup matches this past season. Very admirable.
Henk · December 21, 2013 at 3:39 am
Gaurang: The ATP adopts an objective point system and already factors in the significance of Grand Slams and Davis Cup. The final result gives you the true Year-End No. 1.
The ITF system is only called ‘objective’ but, obviously, focuses on ITF events. Nobody is talking about granting “sympathy points”
This article is not about Novak not being worthy or being a fan of one or the other. It’s about why having two systems of which one is only ‘objective’ in name as it doesn’t factor in the total mix.
As the main objective and purpose of the ITF is to promote tennis, then shouldn’t the ITF World Champion be the same as the ATP World No.1.
And talking about consistency in general: What would you call reaching 14 (!!) finals, including the Year-End final, 2 GS finals (winning both, beating Novak in the semis in one and in the final of the other one), 6 Masters finals (winning 5) and winning 10 of those finals?
Scoop Malinowski · December 21, 2013 at 7:34 am
Dan, Hewitt had a 5-4 head to head over Sampras. A lot of good players have bad records vs. Hewitt. Even Isner is 2-4 vs. an older slower Hewitt. Blake’s l-8 is not surprising. Hewitt was an all time great. Imagine if Hewitt has Nadal’s size and strength.
Scoop Malinowski · December 21, 2013 at 7:39 am
Blake losing that 5 setter to Agassi at Us Open was heartbreaking. That should have been Blake’s tournament. That was his time but Agassi wrecked the J Block party. I will always partly resent Agassi for beating Blake that night haha. I remember Todd Martin was asked about Pete retiring and he had mixed emotions because Pete wrecked so many of his dreams on the court, Pete beat Todd so many times in big matches. Agassi wrecked Blake’s dream run that night at US Open.
Scoop Malinowski · December 21, 2013 at 7:41 am
Blake was amazing like a gunslinger from the wild west, he’d always come out gunza blazing. He ALWAYs pulled the trigger. There aren’t many or any players like that. Blake was a unique player Gaurang.
Scoop Malinowski · December 21, 2013 at 7:46 am
CS3 but Blake really didn’t have a big serve. And his style of all out aggressive attack was always going to be a risk at 5-5 deuce or in the pressure points of a match. Blake has said that he tried to play finesse and conservative style to silence his critics but that style just did not work for him and he played worse that way so he abandoned that idea and reverted back to his guns blazing style. Blake is no dummy, he did what worked best. He had a great career. His style of play was always going to have trouble with a great defender. Defense wins majors, offense sells tickets. Blake was simply not a defensive player.
Scoop Malinowski · December 21, 2013 at 7:48 am
I am surprised to see and respect Tom crediting the ITF’s decision to name Djokovic world champion.
Scoop Malinowski · December 21, 2013 at 8:31 am
Scoop, Hewitt is not an all-time great. He won two slams, and they were against an aging Sampras and Nalbandian at Wimbledon. He only got to 4 slam finals. You call Hewitt an all-time great then you have to call Courier one, and you know neither is. Hewitt has only won 28 titles in all, that’s less than Chang, who’s also not an all-time great. And I think his two Indy Wells titles are his only Masters titles.
Please, Hewitt is not even an all-time Australian great player.
BoDu · December 21, 2013 at 8:45 am
Henk,
– ATP year-end No. 1 is not alwaws the best player. In 1977, no one, except the ATP ranking, considered that Connors was the best player in the world, and everyone thought that Borg or Vilas was the king.
– ITF World Champion award takes into account all results during a season http://www.itftennis.com/news/163361.aspx
– Maybe the fairest conclusion is that Djokovic and Nadal share the title “Best player of 2013”.
Andrew Miller · December 21, 2013 at 10:26 am
Tom and CS3 summed up Blake darn well. No Plan B and not much belief. I know Scoop says that Blake only believed he could hit the ball as hard as possible to win a match. But that’s telling, because he lost to a lot of players that weren’t even in his orbit. Remember the Gullikson approach to Sampras – Sampras complained and complained about the Wimbledon grass and how the surface just didn’t match his game. Gullikson criticized this as a horrible attitude and there you have it – Sampras modified his game and Wimbledon became his empire.
I disagree on Ginepri – watching the 2005 US Open clips vs. Agassi, it looks like Ginepri, with some work on his forehand, could have gotten higher than his top 20 ranking. In fact, the snub for 2005 Davis Cup was totally unmerited – Ginepri earned that spot, as Blake’s ranking was inferior. Basically this was another 2004 – instead of Spadea getting the boot, Ginepri got it.
Wouldn’t it have been better to have 3 top U.S. players in 2006 instead of 2? This is Wayne Bryan’s line again: Pat McEnroe played favorites, and playing favorites sends a signal that you won’t be supported on merit.
Andrew Miller · December 21, 2013 at 10:28 am
(Unrelated I wonder whether Coach Courier will decide to take a different tack – he seems to play favorites a lot less and has a different tack with players).
Scoop Malinowski · December 21, 2013 at 7:09 pm
I remember Ginepri lost 0 and 0 to Hewitt in Cincy early in his career. Then I think Ginepri beat Safin by the same score later in his career. Ginepri had a good career but I think more was hoped for from him. He made a junior slam final if I remember correctly.
Andrew Miller · December 21, 2013 at 8:38 pm
Ginepri v. Roddick, 2000 Junior u.s. open final. By 2005 I think Ginepri really made enormous progress. He slid back after that.
I think Scoop and Dan both said something about Ginepri’s practice habits. He was probably also snubbed when Higueras went to work for Federer briefly. Fernando Gonzalez suffered a similar slide when Stefanki bolted for Roddick (though Stefanki proves that no matter who he works with, they get better). I think again, guys like Annacone, Stefanki don’t work with anyone (Gilbert also). They are pretty well established as coaches to the elite or “getting there” group of players. I don’t think he works with just anyone. You probably need a slam QF to even get Stefanki to return your call if you’re on tour.
Why isn’t Harrison calling him? I’d bet though that a lot of players would want Stefanki on board – he’s proven he’ll coach anyone, anywhere. Maybe pairing with Roddick means Stefanki wants to see another U.S. champ. With a coach like Stefanki though, I think he probably would need to want the job as much as the player wants him to be the coach, so he probably has to like your game and your attitude.
Quote:
“I had the best memories with Larry in my career,” Gonzalez said in a phone interview in March. “He was the best coach I had. Larry taught me a lot about tennis. I learned how to win matches without playing my best. Larry is a very, very good coach, especially when you are trying to be on top.”
Gaurang · December 22, 2013 at 3:49 am
Henk, I never said, ITF’s ranking is good, or better than ATP. Heck I didnt even know until now that ITF even declares their own world champion. And then — I believe, more than 99.9% of people who follow tennis, have probably also not heard of ITF selecting a “world champion” at the end of a season (or am I mistaken and this is very popular??)
I believe in the ATP ranking. Rafa is #1 player there, and I believe it. Even Novak believes it, and he also said a few times that Rafa is the best player of 2013. I support the points system that ATP has. Also the players give efforts based on the ATP points.
I dont think ITF’s decision is better than ATP.
I just said that given the metric that ITF used in their claim, that they weigh grand slams and davis cup results more, it is reasonable to expect that Novak came out ahead of Rafa since he has performed better in those tournaments.
BoDu · December 22, 2013 at 11:09 am
Gaurang,
Do you believe that Connors was the best player in 1977?