PDA

View Full Version : If Nadal wins Wimbledon.....


Attila the tennis Bum
06-12-2007, 05:30 AM
Then I believe that he still will not have enough points to be #1.

The system needs to be changed. It just does not work and does not reflect the true #1 in many instances.

David L
06-12-2007, 05:39 AM
Then I believe that he still will not have enough points to be #1.

The system needs to be changed. It just does not work and does not reflect the true #1 in many instances.There's nothing wrong with the ranking system. It's the same for everyone. You're judged on your performance over a year, not just if you have a hot streak over a couple of months. Any other ranking system you devise is going to have its flaws, like everything else.

Attila the tennis Bum
06-12-2007, 05:41 AM
There's nothing wrong with the ranking system. It's the same for everyone. You're judged on your performance over a year, not just if you have a hot streak over a couple of months. Any other ranking system you devise is going to have its flaws, like everything else.

Don't you think Serena is the "real" #1 player in the world right now?

FiveO
06-12-2007, 05:47 AM
No, the system is very valid. It's based on the prior twelve months.

IF Nadal should win Wimbledon there is still nearly half a year of sub-par results on Rafa's record last year when the guy he is chasing won 6 of the 7 events he entered including one Major (USO), two Master's Series events (Canada and Madrid) and the Tennis Masters Cup. In fact Nadal did not win an event of any kind on any surface after the '06 RG in May until the Indian Wells Masters Series event in March of '07. Nearly 10 months with zero titles.

That being said, and looking on the bright side for Nadal, he'll have ample opportunity to improve on his results from now through the end of 2007.

David L
06-12-2007, 05:54 AM
Don't you think Serena is the "real" #1 player in the world right now?Ranking is determined by performance. That's the only fair and objective way to do it. You may think you have more abilities and talent than another player, but if you don't perform and beat the opposition, you can hardly claim foul play. Tallying up performances over a whole season is the most accurate and fair way of doing it. It takes account of peoples preferred surfaces and their consistency. If you want to see how people have done so far, there are always the race rankings.

TheAeropro
06-12-2007, 06:19 AM
Well... as a third party, without any personal favoritism, I find it odd that Nadal is 8-4 versus Federer and is still number 2. The number one player in the world should usually beat everyone else. Sure, Nadal has more losses this year than Federer, but he has the most wins on the ATP and has won the most number of tournaments on the ATP. The thing with the points system is Federer could die today and still nd up being number one for the rest of the year.

federerfanatic
06-12-2007, 06:22 AM
This thread is stupid. Nadal wont even come closing to winning Wimbledon so it does not matter what would happen if Nadal wins Wimbledon. Roddick would not have been #1 if he won the French Open, but who cares since it was never going to happen.

federerfanatic
06-12-2007, 06:24 AM
Don't you think Serena is the "real" #1 player in the world right now?


No. Justine Henin has 1 slam title, and 2 other slam final showings, on her past years record right now. Serena only has 1 slam title, 1 slam quarter, and 1 slam round of 16 on her past years record. Justine has a much better overall tournament record right now, even considering the events both play, and ignoring Serena's less full schedule. They have played twice this year, Serena barely wining on hard courts, and Justine mulching Serena on clay. Justine is most definitely the "real" #1 right now, atleast until if Serena wins another big one before Justine does by years end.

TheAeropro
06-12-2007, 06:26 AM
Well... Nadal number one in the points race, and Serena was number one in the points race, I haven't been able to check after the FO

federerfanatic
06-12-2007, 06:30 AM
Well... Nadal number one in the points race, and Serena was number one in the points race, I haven't been able to check after the FO


Serena is not #1 in the points race or even close:

1. Jelena Jankovic 2610.00
2. Justine Henin 2520.00
3. Ana Ivanovic 1946.00
4. Svetlana Kuznetsova 1911.00
5. Serena Williams 1891.00
6. Maria Sharapova 1545.00

CyBorg
06-12-2007, 06:59 AM
Let's wait until Federer misses a grand slam final, something that hasn't happened since the middle ages.

David L
06-12-2007, 07:01 AM
Well... as a third party, without any personal favoritism, I find it odd that Nadal is 8-4 versus Federer and is still number 2. The number one player in the world should usually beat everyone else. Sure, Nadal has more losses this year than Federer, but he has the most wins on the ATP and has won the most number of tournaments on the ATP. The thing with the points system is Federer could die today and still nd up being number one for the rest of the year.Well, head to heads are not workable for obvious reasons. Blake is 3-0 over Nadal. Federer is 6-0 over Blake. So Blake would have to be ranked above Nadal, but Federer above Blake and Nadal above Federer. It's not logically possible. You have to go with performance in tournaments. Also, most of Nadals victories over Federer were over one or two years ago. This year it is 2-1. If you include their last 5 meetings going back 12 months it is 3-2 in Federer's favour. Then there is the fact that Nadal had a drought from last year's Wimbledon until this year's Indian Wells. He did'nt sniff so much as a final even. If you want to see how players are progressing, there are the race rankings, but the other rankings will be determined by who has the best record going back 12 months. If Nadal performs better than Federer in the second half of the season he will reap the rewards. Both Federer and Nadal have had good seasons so far, but Federer is the current holder of the most titles and the most important titles. Maybe they would consider the head to head for this year if they had the same number of points, as a tie-breaker, but then would the time span be over the last 12 months or from January, both of which would have different outcomes? The current system is fine and it's the same for everyone, so no one can really complain.

Also, if Federer stopped playing today, by the end of the year he would not be No.1. He would lose all his points as each tournament passed.

Stinkdyr
06-12-2007, 07:04 AM
Nadal has darker skin and therefore it is obvious that he is being prevented from being named #1 by global warming prejudice. Nadal should be named #1 to help heal his low self-esteem placed on him by centuries of fair skinned prejudice and oppression. We need a President Hillary Clinton to enforce this new policy to make the world fair for all of the children.

CyBorg
06-12-2007, 07:07 AM
Nadal has darker skin and therefore it is obvious that he is being prevented from being named #1 by global warming prejudice. Nadal should be named #1 to help heal his low self-esteem placed on him by centuries of fair skinned prejudice and oppression. We need a President Hillary Clinton to enforce this new policy to make the world fair for all of the children.

Tennis needs affirmative action doctorine to penalize Federer for his oppressive whiteness. Just imagine the kinds of skeletons the man's hiding in his Swiss bank account.

RMB
06-12-2007, 07:09 AM
Nadal has darker skin and therefore it is obvious that he is being prevented from being named #1 by global warming prejudice. Nadal should be named #1 to help heal his low self-esteem placed on him by centuries of fair skinned prejudice and oppression. We need a President Hillary Clinton to enforce this new policy to make the world fair for all of the children.

Agree! But instead of HC, lets put GWB or DC, they are the champions of the civil rights movement!!!!

Andres
06-12-2007, 07:24 AM
Well... as a third party, without any personal favoritism, I find it odd that Nadal is 8-4 versus Federer and is still number 2. The number one player in the world should usually beat everyone else. Sure, Nadal has more losses this year than Federer, but he has the most wins on the ATP and has won the most number of tournaments on the ATP. The thing with the points system is Federer could die today and still nd up being number one for the rest of the year.
If Fed dies today, he doesn't defend Wimbledon (1000) and USO, MS Canada, MS Madrid, Basel, Tokyo, Halle and TMC

Wimbledon: 1000 pts
USO: 1000 pts
MS Canada: 500 pts
MS Madrid: 500 pts:
Basel: 250 pts
Tokyo: 250 pts
Halle: 225 pts
TMC: 750 pts

Loses 4475 pts. He has 7515 pts right now. With the 4475 drop, he'll have 3040 pts. Davydenko is #3 with 3040, and Djokovic is #4 with 3010. He could drop to #3, 4 or #5 if he dies today ;)

The system WORKS.

Voltron
06-12-2007, 07:27 AM
Then I believe that he still will not have enough points to be #1.

The system needs to be changed. It just does not work and does not reflect the true #1 in many instances.
The system is working well enough. any other system you design will just as flawed as the current one.
Don't you think Serena is the "real" #1 player in the world right now?
No, I really don't.
If Fed dies today, he doesn't defend Wimbledon (1000) and USO, MS Canada, MS Madrid, Basel, Tokyo, Halle and TMC

Wimbledon: 1000 pts
USO: 1000 pts
MS Canada: 500 pts
MS Madrid: 500 pts:
Basel: 250 pts
Tokyo: 250 pts
Halle: 225 pts
TMC: 750 pts

Loses 4475 pts. He has 7515 pts right now. With the 4475 drop, he'll have 3040 pts. Davydenko is #3 with 3040, and Djokovic is #4 with 3010. He could drop to #3, 4 or #5 if he dies today ;)

The system WORKS.
Yes, this is because the system works on s twelve month rolling calender. IMHO it does work.

CyBorg
06-12-2007, 07:30 AM
The saddest thing about TTW is that in a matter of about 4 months, Federer will have 12 grand slam titles and everyone will be talking about how Nadal should retire.

Voltron
06-12-2007, 07:38 AM
The saddest thing about TTW is that in a matter of about 4 months, Federer will have 12 grand slam titles and everyone will be talking about how Nadal should retire. Exactly, why don't we just start the threads now?.....;)

a guy
06-12-2007, 08:05 AM
If nadal wins wimbledon, henman will win the FO next year.

GET REAL.

CyBorg
06-12-2007, 08:12 AM
If nadal wins wimbledon, henman will win the FO next year.

GET REAL.

Tim Henman - 2004 FO Semi finalist. The clay court drought began 3 years ago when Juan Carlos Ferrero lost it.

a guy
06-12-2007, 08:15 AM
So you think Henman, who lost in the first round of just about every tournament this year, is a challenge at the FO?

CyBorg
06-12-2007, 08:23 AM
So you think Henman, who lost in the first round of just about every tournament this year, is a challenge at the FO?

Common sense, no?

WhiteSox05CA
06-12-2007, 08:27 AM
I don't think there is anything wrong with how the system works.

a guy
06-12-2007, 11:11 AM
Common sense, no?

Then what is the relevance in mentioning his semi final in 2004? What are you, stupid?

Attila the tennis Bum
06-12-2007, 11:25 AM
Do you realize that Lendl attained the #1 spot even though Becker beat him to win both Wimbledon and The US open.:confused:

Why don't they just do what Wimbledon does. At Wimbledon they throw the point system out and a board of experts just decide on what the rankings should be.

maverick1
06-12-2007, 11:45 AM
Then I believe that he still will not have enough points to be #1.

The system needs to be changed. It just does not work and does not reflect the true #1 in many instances.

The ranking system is fair but I agree it is a poor indicator of who the best current players are.

It gives the same weight to what players did last week as it does to what players did 12 months ago. And it gives zero weight to a tournament played 12 months and 1 week ago as if it suddenly became irrelevant. This is what leads absurdities like someone dropping 50 places in a week without even playing. Someone who wins one grand slam and not much else stays very high in the ranking for exactly 12 months and suddenly drops off into obscurity. Fortunately you don't see much of these absurdities in Men's Tennis lately because only two players win grand slams and one of them is clearly ahead as he wins 3 out of 4. It is hard for anyone to argue that the rankings are unfair at the top.

However, a much better system exists and is used in other sports(Cricket).
What they should do is decrease the weight of points earned each week depending on how long ago they were earned. Points earned in the most recent week should be counted in whole. Points earned the week before should be multiplied by, say, 0.95. The points two weeks ago should be multiplied twice by 0.95, points earned three weeks ago should be multipled three times by 0.95, and so on.
You don't need an arbitrary cutoff like 1 year; you just count everything the player has ever done, but with (exponentially) decreasing weight as time goes by.

Changes in rankings are guaranteed to be gradual, and the hottest players will tend to rank higher than players who are cooling off.

AlpineCadet
06-12-2007, 11:56 AM
Agree! But instead of HC, lets put GWB or DC, they are the champions of the civil rights movement!!!!

I should just slap you through your monitor.

ckthegreek
06-12-2007, 11:57 AM
The system is far from perfect but it's the same for everyone.

Personally, I'd like to see a system that takes into account the 'quality' of the win. For example, if you beat a guy in the first round of Wimbledon that is ranked No. 33 in the world you should get more points that someone else who beat a qualifier ranked 300 in the same round.

I do admit though that it would be a bit of a nightmare to calculate/follow.

AlpineCadet
06-12-2007, 11:58 AM
Nadal has darker skin and therefore it is obvious that he is being prevented from being named #1 by global warming prejudice. Nadal should be named #1 to help heal his low self-esteem placed on him by centuries of fair skinned prejudice and oppression. We need a President Hillary Clinton to enforce this new policy to make the world fair for all of the children.

When you run out of excuses/reasons to explain a certain situation, I'm sure it's always easier for someone to pull out the "race card" as an explanation for everything. :roll: :rolleyes: :idea:

caulcano
06-12-2007, 12:45 PM
The ranking system is fair but I agree it is a poor indicator of who the best current players are.

It gives the same weight to what players did last week as it does to what players did 12 months ago. And it gives zero weight to a tournament played 12 months and 1 week ago as if it suddenly became irrelevant. This is what leads absurdities like someone dropping 50 places in a week without even playing. Someone who wins one grand slam and not much else stays very high in the ranking for exactly 12 months and suddenly drops off into obscurity. Fortunately you don't see much of these absurdities in Men's Tennis lately because only two players win grand slams and one of them is clearly ahead as he wins 3 out of 4. It is hard for anyone to argue that the rankings are unfair at the top.

However, a much better system exists and is used in other sports(Cricket).
What they should do is decrease the weight of points earned each week depending on how long ago they were earned. Points earned in the most recent week should be counted in whole. Points earned the week before should be multiplied by, say, 0.95. The points two weeks ago should be multiplied twice by 0.95, points earned three weeks ago should be multipled three times by 0.95, and so on.
You don't need an arbitrary cutoff like 1 year; you just count everything the player has ever done, but with (exponentially) decreasing weight as time goes by.

Changes in rankings are guaranteed to be gradual, and the hottest players will tend to rank higher than players who are cooling off.

I agree the current rankings should be adjusted slightly but I prefer a 2 year rolling period ... with your idea of Points being weighted accordingly (decreasing over time).

CyBorg
06-12-2007, 12:58 PM
Then what is the relevance in mentioning his semi final in 2004? What are you, stupid?

Not stupid. Brilliant.

CyBorg
06-12-2007, 01:06 PM
Ok, I'll remove my mask and admit that I was joking. You may pull up your pants now. The polka-dot undies don't suit you.

fastdunn
06-12-2007, 01:36 PM
The thing is that Federer does almost equally well on all surfaces.

He can defend his ranking from other places even if he misses one slam
on one surfaces.

Flip side of it is, though, if his general performance goes down a notch,
it's likely to propagate on *all* surfaces.

Well, so far, that hasn't happened yet and the scary part is that even though
Federer's performance level dropped a bit, he still did as good as he did
last year for clay court season.

This Federer guy is one tough mama-jammer.

edmondsm
06-12-2007, 01:39 PM
Don't you think Serena is the "real" #1 player in the world right now?

So do you have a system that would make her that?

If Rafa wants to be #1 than he will have to perform better than mediocre on the U.S. hardcourts. That's how it is. Deal buddy.

federerfanatic
06-12-2007, 02:01 PM
So do you have a system that would make her that?

Of course there isnt one since Serena does not have better "results" then the current #1 Justine Henin in any context. She does do better in slam wins-1 each in the last 12 months. She does not do better in overall slam results-each have played 3 slams, overall Justine's results much better. She does not do better in overall tournament results. She does not do better in overall tier 1 event results. She does not play as many tournaments. She does not lead their head to head in the last 12 months, each with 1 win.

There is no ranking system you could invent that would rank Serena over Justine right now since in no context are any of her results even slightly superior overall. The only way would be to something instill the ranking system with the biggest kind of nonsense like career head to head outside of clay points awards, or serving MPH points awarded, or something like that.