With the season coming to an end, it’s time to look back at those predictions, to see which ones worked and which ones came unstuck. And, while we made some good calls, there were some awful shouts as well. One of us had Kevin Anderson finishing in the top ten, another predicted a Federer Olympics-Tour Finals double. None of us saw Dominic Thiem or Gael Monfils making their debuts at the year-end showdown.
In order to spice things up, I’m trialling a scoring system to keep track of which of us are the best predictors, and who is lagging behind. Believe me, the final result came as a bit of a surprise.
As a quick reminder, here were our five predictors:
This year saw a massive change at the top. For the first time in history, a Brit finished top of the pile (and his brother formed part of the best doubles team too), with Andy Murray finally toppling Novak Djokovic. With the final ranking points now in, Murray has 12,000 points, Djokovic a few hundred behind, with third place Milos Raonic acquiring less than half of those numbers. Murray and Djokovic’s dominance is unquestioned.
None of us saw the Brit securing the most coveted of spots this November. Only one of us had him finishing second, we were all vaguely pessimistic about his chances this year. Only Emma predicted Kei Nishikori breaking into the top five, but none of us predicted Milos Raonic’s rise. Perhaps that isn’t a surprise, this time last year, the big-serving Canadian sat outside the top ten.
Yet, as Emma, Josh, their Dad and I saw on Saturday, there is no question that he deserves it. On more than one occasion this year, Raonic has pushed Andy Murray to within an inch of beating him. He hasn’t managed to find a way to turn himself into a champion and, at the moment at least, lacks the mentality to deal with being ahead in matches he shouldn’t. But he is definitely a future Grand Slam champion, and possibly the next new world number one.
There was all change at the bottom of the top ten too. David Ferrer has gone, with Tomas Berdych and Rafael Nadal clinging on. Gael Monfils had a storming year, thoroughly deserving his top ten finish. Dominic Thiem, 23, is the youngest member of the elite ten, but that doesn’t make his place a fluke. None of us saw it coming, but few of us are surprised by the Austrian’s rise.
Our predictors were a little thrown by the bottom half of the top ten. Granted, it becomes harder to guess without any consistent names (especially when Berdych dropped from his seventh perch), however, it’s fair to say we could have done better.
On the whole, we overhyped known stars such as Roger Federer (who finished sixteenth) and Rafael Nadal, while undervaluing Thiem, Raonic, Marin Cilic and, less-so, Kei Nishikori. Only one of us got a spot-on prediction – Charlie with Stan Wawrinka.
It’s time to introduce the scoring system. We all predicted Djokovic to finish top, yet he finished second. So that meant we all got one point. Points are essentially the error in our placing. Federer finishing in sixteenth meant placing him in second scored fourteen points, third thirteen and so on and so forth. Thus, the winner of our predictions will be the person who scores the fewest points.
Our top tens left the table like this:
5. James (101)
3. Josh (48)
3. Emma (48)
2. Charlie (41)
1. Gareth (38)
Kevin Anderson scored 59 points, essentially ending James’ hopes of becoming the best predictor.
But we didn’t just predict the top ten. We went further and cast our gaze over the Grand Slams too. This is what we came up with, compared to what actually happened:
We fared a little better with the slightly easier task of predicting the Slam champions. At the start of the year, Novak winning the Australian Open was a dead cert. Him winning in France was, with hindsight, almost guaranteed as well. We all, quite rightly, saw his dominance continuing in London. Emma and Josh thought he would win all four, and at one point this year, it looked like they would be right. James’ US Open prediction was spot on.
I had to alter the scoring system for the Slams. Eventually, I settled on 0 for correct, 1 for losing finalist, 2 for losing in the semi-finals and so on. Nadal and Djokovic lost in the third round at the French and Wimbledon respectively, so for all of those predictions, we scored five points. If a player ended up not competing, they would score the points available for losing in the first round, plus one.
Which left the points total:
5. James (111)
2. Josh (54)
2. Emma (54)
2. Charlie (54)
1. Gareth (49)
Josh and Emma had an excellent round with the Grand Slams, completely closing the gap on Charlie.
We made one more set of predictions: the Olympics and the Tour Finals.
A glorious table for British fans, but an awful one for me! Roger didn’t play in either the Olympics or the Tour Finals, meaning I scored the maximum points available for both. Charlie and James were suitably patriotic concerning Gold in Rio, but none of us saw a Murray double in the “minor slams”.
The scoring system was the same as above, but I’ve added in the second predictions we made once the Tour Finals draw happened. Charlie and Josh stuck with their predictions, Emma thought Cilic would win, James correctly called Murray and I plumped for the injured Monfils.
All of which, left the final table:
5. James (112)
4. Josh (65)
3. Emma (64)
2. Gareth (62)
1. Charlie (56)
Eventually, my unusual rooting for Roger backfired, and Charlie’s more consistent picks gave him the victory. Emma won the battle of the Stills, while James would have finished a lot higher had he not gone for Kevin Anderson. James was good money on the Olympics and Tour Finals – his three predictions only scored one point.
There is still a tournament ongoing on the WTA tour (with a player involved in our predictions), so the women’s equivalent to this article will be up once that is over.