Tennis World No.3 or No.4: Is There Really a Big Difference?

Novak Djokovic's defeat at the hands of Rafael Nadal in the final of the Masters 1000 event in Rome on Sunday means that as of next week, the Serb will slip from third to fourth place in the world rankings. It is Andy Murray who will overtake him to become the world No.3 and, as a result, Murray will become the first British player in the open era, to be ranked as high as No.3.

Former World No.1, Roger Federer, lost to Djokovic in the semi-finals in Rome; it was a match in which fortunes fluctuated. However, prior to this loss, Federer gave an exclusive interview to the BBC; this can be heard on the BBC tennis website.

One of the questions that Federer was asked was about the rankings. The question was: "Unless Novak Djokovic wins the Rome title Andy Murray will become the new World No.3. Just how big an achievement is this?"

Federer's response to this question I found extremely interesting. He said, "It is a nice story, but is there really any difference between being No.3 and being No.4? I don't think so, it's all about being top dog and being the No.1 seed".

The point that Federer makes is an interesting one, for a number of reasons. In Britain a big fuss is made of Andy Murray, which is understandable given his success over the last 12 months and his undoubted potential. However, in Federer's eyes, a man who has been at the pinnacle of the game for so long, you need to reach the summit before you can be viewed as a true great. It may seem like a harsh view, but this is professional tennis, it is a ruthless business.

In reality, what is the difference between being ranked No.3 and No.4 in the world? Both players will be in two separate halves of the draw, and will have either the world No.1 or No.2 in their half of the draw. In other words, whether you are ranked No.3 or No.4 in the world you are going to have to beat the cream of the crop to come away with the silver-ware.

What should also be noted is that rankings do not always reflect who is playing the very best at a particular moment in time. Instead, they are a reward for consistency over 12 months. Andy Murray has been arguably the most consistent player in terms of his results since Wimbledon last year while Novak Djokovic endured a difficult start to this year. However, if we look at the last two Masters 1000 events in Monte Carlo and Rome Murray lost in the semis-finals and the second round respectively, whilst Djokovic reached the finals of both events.

Although Murray has fewer points to defend in the clay season, he will be under much more pressure once we head towards the second half of the year. For the first time he will have to defend a serious amount of ranking points, having reached the quarter-finals at Wimbledon, the final of the US Open and won Master shields in Cincinnati and Madrid last year.

Having seen how composed and mature Murray is, I do not expect this pressure to bother him unduly, but I do see Federer's point: there isn't a big difference between the No.3 and No.4 spots. After all, it is really about being top dog. What do you guys think?

Another thing which I found intriguing from Federer's interview was that he feels he played great tennis in the Australian Open final but lost out as Rafa has been playing such phenomenal tennis. Yet the 13 time Grand Slam champion said that when it comes to playing Djokovic and Murray, even though he has lost twice to both of them this season, he feels that the match is very much on "his racket"; the game is in his hands...interesting indeed.