Federer could lose in straight sets or win in straight sets and still qualify. ?

[RunMaker]

Rather interesting.



[h=3]So, is there an easy way to understand it?[/h]In short, no.


Here's our attempt at a 'simple' breakdown of how the top two are decided in each of the two four-player groups:

• Greatest number of wins
• If two players are tied: Head-to-head results
• If three players are tied: 1) Highest percentage of sets won; 2) Highest percentage of games won; 3) Players' ATP Rankings coming into the tournament

So with that in mind, Federer will go through if any of these situations happen:

1. He wins in two sets and Thiem beats Kei Nishikori in two.
2. He wins in two sets and Thiem wins in three.
3. He wins in two sets and Nishikori beats Thiem in two sets. Highest % of games won will then be the decider.
4. He wins in two sets and Nishikori wins in three.
5. He wins in three sets and Thiem wins in two.
6. He wins in three sets and Thiem wins in three.

This is how the group currently stands:

Group Lleyton Hewitt
	P	W-L	Sets	Games
Kevin Anderson	2	2-0	4-0	25-10
Kei Nishikori	2	1-1	2-2	14-21
Roger Federer	2	1-1	2-2	21-18
Dominic Thiem	2	0-2	0-4	14-25

<thead>
</thead><tbody>
</tbody>

If you're still not sure what's going on, the best thing to do is to follow our guide on the group standings, results and fixtures and just trust us when we say Federer is through or not.

 

[RunMaker]

That only covers some of the scenarios.


Federer can lose in 2 sets and advance if..... Thiem wins in 2 sets.... and Fed has greater % of games won over Nishikori and Thiem.

Federer can lose in 3 sets and advance if..... Thiem wins in 2 sets.

 

[WoodStool]

Another end of year flame out by Thiem...

 

[Greenbacks]

Roger might not have anything left in the tank

 

[WoodStool]

I think he beats Anderson today and gets out of group play....We might as well get a novak v Federer final. What has been disappointing is how bad all the younger players are...the big 3 will probably still be ruling over tennis in their early 40s at this rate...once again a year in which no one won a grand slam that wasn't named roger novak or nadal.

Only positive for the younger guys is at lest at this point it looks like the Andy Murray hurdle is gone over injury.

 

[Ricboff]

he won the division ,lol. 37 yrs young. What a fuckin' freak. 2018 ,54-9.....

he's at 99 career titles. Only one guy stands higher, Jimbo at 109


when does this guy call it quits?

1:50 to 3 min mark is genius

 

[WoodStool]

he won the division ,lol. 37 yrs young. What a fuckin' freak. 2018 ,54-9.....

he's at 99 career titles. Only one guy stands higher, Jimbo at 109


when does this guy call it quits?

1:50 to 3 min mark is genius

Not at this point...the only guy clearly better is Novak...then its him and Nadal and everyone else is far far far behind

 

[Ricboff]

not sure about the 'clearly better'stuff. The match in Paris could have gone either way. And Nadal is the fav on clay ANYWHERE on the planet vs Nole. And the competition is not far far behind either; Nole has lost 12 times this year, he's 31. Age eventually gets to us all. He has lost to solid youngsters; Chung, Tsitsipas, Khachanov, and Edmund. None of these players are in his class, but its a reminder that if you're off ya cant beat these kids with the "c" game

 

[WoodStool]

not sure about the 'clearly better'stuff. The match in Paris could have gone either way. And Nadal is the fav on clay ANYWHERE on the planet vs Nole. And the competition is not far far behind either; Nole has lost 12 times this year, he's 31. Age eventually gets to us all. He has lost to solid youngsters; Chung, Tsitsipas, Khachanov, and Edmund. None of these players are in his class, but its a reminder that if you're off ya cant beat these kids with the "c" game

I am a Fed Fan myself...I think he is the best to ever do it...Just think at this point Novak is the best in the game. No doubt Novak had a tough beginning of the year coming off injury but has dominated from the middle of the year on...

Nadal is the best ever on clay no doubt there...and one of the best all time period.

We could actually be seeing the top 3 players of all time in the same era. The young guys are starting to get closer to their mid twenties and have won 0 grand slams to this point...in my opinion they are very far off..

 

[Ricboff]

'We could actually be seeing the top 3 players of all time in the same era. '

scary isnt it? comparing players of other eras is always challenging irrespective the sport. Sampras' serve and volley skills were remarkable, havent seen anything like it to this day. i'd take Sampras over Nole in a best of 5 match on any surface other than clay.

also its overly simplistic to just look at GS titles as the main driver of the 'all time bests' debate



how many GS would Borg have had won if he didnt call it quits early (age 26)? if he had played at The Aussie Open ?(only played it once, it wasnt relevant during his playing days).

 

[WoodStool]

'We could actually be seeing the top 3 players of all time in the same era. '

scary isnt it? comparing players of other eras is always challenging irrespective the sport. Sampras' serve and volley skills were remarkable, havent seen anything like it to this day. i'd take Sampras over Nole in a best of 5 match on any surface other than clay.

also its overly simplistic to just look at GS titles as the main driver of the 'all time bests' debate



how many GS would Borg have had won if he didnt call it quits early (age 26)? if he had played at The Aussie Open ?(only played it once, it wasnt relevant during his playing days).

Well that's the thing...it use to be once u hit your late 20s you where done in tennis. I believe McEnroe played into his 30s and didn't win a grand slam after the age of 25 or 26.

I agree somewhat with your GS statement...but even looking at the master 1000s events its been dominated by the big 3...big 4 if you include Murray before the injuries. The younger guys won a few when Novak Murray and to a lesser injury extent Nadal where all injuried. So yes Federer didn't win them all but won a lot of them last year.

Sampras was the best of his era but not taking him over novak, roger or rafa...Clay isn't everything of course...but Sampras never even made a roland garross final...not even sure if he made a semi-final. The other 3 have career grand slams.

 

[Ricboff]

Sampras was called the best ever for awhile as he had the most GS titles for the longest time. How can one bestow that honor to a guy that was an average clay courter?

 

[WoodStool]

Sampras was called the best ever for awhile as he had the most GS titles for the longest time. How can one bestow that honor to a guy that was an average clay courter?

Because he was at that time...I also think at that time good clay court players where referred to as specialists....who where only good at clay and nothing else. That changed when Federer and Nadal came on the scene. To think all the clay court titles Federer would have won if not for Nadal. He was easily the 2nd best clay court player of his time...but Nadal is the best ever. Lost something around 5 roland garross finals to him...

 

[Ricboff]

My point was , to be labeled the Best Ever ya gotta be competent /accconplished on all major surfaces . Pete wasn't . I'd call Borg's career more impressive be than Pete's

its also why his peers call Fed the best ever

 

[Ricboff]

'I also think at that time good clay court players where referred to as specialists..'

cause its such a demanding surface to play on. A big serve alone aint going to cut it. Borg won 6 Roland Garros titles and 5 Wimbledon titles. DAMN impressive

 

[RunMaker]

Looks like Federer is workign the "fear angle" today. Throughout his career he has lost in many lead-up matches when he has an opponent on the horizon that will absolutely kill him. He has done this many times in lead-up matches with Nadal, Djkovic and others when they have been running hot.

Some may disagree, but I believe it's a psychological angle that sometimes comes into play.

He is clowning right now vs Zverev. Lost 1st set after tanking 0-40 at *5-6 to lose the first set 7-5.

 

[WoodStool]

Looks like Federer is workign the "fear angle" today. Throughout his career he has lost in many lead-up matches when he has an opponent on the horizon that will absolutely kill him. He has done this many times in lead-up matches with Nadal, Djkovic and others when they have been running hot.

Some may disagree, but I believe it's a psychological angle that sometimes comes into play.

He is clowning right now vs Zverev. Lost 1st set after tanking 0-40 at *5-6 to lose the first set 7-5.

Federer with the break...2-1 2nd set

 

[WoodStool]

annndd gives it back...2-2

 

[RunMaker]

Straight up cheating by Zverev.... sometimes it pays to cheat.

 

[Ricboff]

21 yr old Alexander Zverev takes care of BOTH 37 yr old Fed and 31 yr old Nole.........IN STRAIGHTS no less......The kid is loaded with talent, has to get past the belief barrier...might be getting there....and perform during the GS. Will 2019 be his awakening?

Alexander has a career record Vs Nole of 3-2 and 4-4 Vs Fed


popcorn-eatinggif

Nole closes the season with 13 loses. His largest loss total since 2010