The elephant in the room

Last year Nole overtook Nadal in the rankings and didn't look back.

This year Federer has overtaken Nadal in the rankings and won't look back.

Soon it will be Murray overtaking Nadal in the rankings and won't look back.

Nadal is the player who is declining the most of the top 4.

Fact.

Bump.

I love the fact that you bumped your own article after 4 minutes. However I'm sorry to tell you but the article below you will soon after this comment overtake you in the rankings and won't look back.
Soon it will be the one below that which overtakes you and doesn't look back.
etc

jersey wrote:... This year Federer has overtaken Nadal in the rankings and won't look back. ...

Yes, but he can still be overtaken without looking back. That's actually the easiest way to be retaken, you don't check back, and there are a horde of sneaky people collecting behind you.

These statements have all been checked and verified and hence pass as FACT!

Fed really isn't #2 to be honest, there is currently no Rome in the rankings, which while strictly correct by the rules means the rankings don't reflect a full rolling season.

Nadal will win Rome and clear this up by Roland Garros anyway. Federers chances come later on, in the late Summer.

I agree with BB - if your ranking is not the same as your seeding for the event (bar Wimbledon) then there is a mismatch. It's meaningless to be ranked No. 2 for the duration of an event for which you are seeded No. 3 with every chance that by the end of the event you'll be back to No. 3. If the timing of removal of old points and adding in new points is the same for RG it's quite possible that a similar nonsense will prevail during that tournament - i.e. Fed having 2 more weeks of a 'ghost' No. 2 ranking but a No. 3 seeding at an event which takes the world ranking for its seedings. No wonder Rafa is not bothered.

Does it really matter? Only if you are totting up Fed vs. Sampras for total weeks in the top 2, which Fed is set to overtake Sampras on in the next week or so and Fed does not regain No. 2 (or better) properly later on. Ranking is, of course, very important, but little things like this show some of its limitations.

I also agree with BB that reaching No. 1 is reaching No. 1 whenever you do it - it is a verdict on who has had the best over the last previous 12 months which is equally impressive technically whether in May or November. Any player would rather get the y/e No. 1 because the watching world is more focused on ranking at that point and you get a few free weeks at No. 1 when nobody's playing, but for the pure techincal measure of the achievement of being the best over the last 12 months I don't think it makes any difference.

If you want to be really argumentative, you could say that Fed's ranking achievements are more impressive than Sampras's because he's had less 'free weeks' at No. 1 having had only 5 and not 6 y/e No. 1's - but I say you have to take the rough with the smooth and Sampras has had one more week at No. 1, end of.

It's a shame it's 1 week apart because Sampras might be 1 week ahead simply because one tournament changed from 700 to 800 points to the winner at some point...or because one tournament was moved a week earlier or later...or any number of things. There are far too many variables to think that 1 week really represents a (clearly) better achievement. It would be better if they were tied or one of them were several weeks ahead. Would be interested to see a table of year end no 1s/most dominant player in theyear going back to at least the 1950s for players with 3 or more. Maybe I'll dig it up another day if I have time.