PDA

View Full Version : The ranking system is complete B.S.


Attila the tennis Bum
07-08-2007, 02:49 AM
Venus Williams is now the lowest ranked player to ever win Wimbledon. And Sererna gave the #1 Sharapova a tennis lesson at the AO.

Way back when becker won both Wimbledon and the US open in one year and yet Ivan Lendl was ranked the year end #1,

Even today, if Nadal wins Wimbledon the Roger Federer will still be ranked #1 in the world.

Duzza
07-08-2007, 02:52 AM
What the hell are you talking about this time? I don't get you....

Points are given to the players who win the most matches. Federer won the AO, where did Nadal get to again? Federer made the Final of the FO. Federer is probably going to beat Nadal at W anyway.

Federer obviously has more points for a reason...possibly because he has won more valuable matches?

As for Venus, I don't get it. So what if she is the lowest ranked player? She's been out for a while, no play=no points you do realise?

Zaragoza
07-08-2007, 02:56 AM
Even if Nadal loses today he will be no.1 in the Race, that is, best player of 2007. After August, I think his results will be better than last year and it will be tough for Federer to repeat those results so the gap won´t be so big but still comfortable for Federer.

fps
07-08-2007, 02:57 AM
Nadal is leading the "race" at the moment, based on this year alone!

93sq.
07-08-2007, 03:04 AM
Attila is right...
Computer may know algebra....but it doesn't know tennis!

sondraj
07-08-2007, 03:20 AM
What the hell are you talking about this time? I don't get you....

Points are given to the players who win the most matches. Federer won the AO, where did Nadal get to again? Federer made the Final of the FO. Federer is probably going to beat Nadal at W anyway.

Federer obviously has more points for a reason...possibly because he has won more valuable matches?

As for Venus, I don't get it. So what if she is the lowest ranked player? She's been out for a while, no play=no points you do realise?

Now you don't make sense, do you know that if rafa wins w he will be number one without a doubt and that right now he is in the lead as far as points this year, um yeah

Rhino
07-08-2007, 03:23 AM
Oh man this is a stupid thread. What would you have them do with the rankings? In your world if a lower ranked player beats a higher ranked player then the rankings should be reversed? Should Gasquet suddenly be #4 in the world?
It's a really good system at the moment, giving us an accurate indication of who has played better over a 12 month period.

saram
07-08-2007, 05:00 AM
Venus Williams is now the lowest ranked player to ever win Wimbledon. And Sererna gave the #1 Sharapova a tennis lesson at the AO.

Way back when becker won both Wimbledon and the US open in one year and yet Ivan Lendl was ranked the year end #1,

Even today, if Nadal wins Wimbledon the Roger Federer will still be ranked #1 in the world.


I agree that they need to look at how the structure the points. I would like to see the points from the previous year play no impact upon the current year. Defending points just does not make sense to me. Every sport in the world starts the season with everyone even and at zero points.

You are onto something here...we just need to figure it out...

CyBorg
07-08-2007, 05:09 AM
I wouldn't mind it if more points went to winners of majors. Players seem to find ways to climb up the ATP rankings without coming up with top notch play at the majors. One successful summer clay court season, for instance, can hold much more promise than a major in terms of racking up points.

Not sure what this has with Nadal and Federer. The last time I checked Roger holds three of the four majors and the masters cup.

MEAC_ALLAMERICAN
07-08-2007, 05:34 AM
I think the ATP entry system is a nice way to keep the players honest, but when I look at the ATP race for 2007, the right player is rewarded because Nadal has been more consistent and has played more.

2007:

Nadal is 51-7: 5 titles (3 MS, 1 GS).
Federer is 35-5 titles (1MS, 1 GS).

However, over the past 12 months Federer has been more consistent in all 4 majors, and the Masters Cup. But these next few months is going to be interesting because if Nadal wins or lose Wimbledon he will still have a nice lead over Federer.

Attila the tennis Bum
07-08-2007, 07:16 AM
Now you don't make sense, do you know that if rafa wins w he will be number one without a doubt and that right now he is in the lead as far as points this year, um yeah

actually fed is so many points ahead that he will still be number one even if he loses wimby.

sondraj
07-08-2007, 07:19 AM
actually fed is so many points ahead that he will still be number one even if he loses wimby.

Right now yes, but rafa is number one in the race and if he keeps it up till the end of the year he will be number one but that's a big if

what I meant by without a doubt was more of yeah it could still be a doubt if he tanks the rest of the year, but I think his tennis has come so far he will make it happen for the later half of the year

Attila the tennis Bum
07-08-2007, 07:20 AM
Oh man this is a stupid thread. What would you have them do with the rankings? In your world if a lower ranked player beats a higher ranked player then the rankings should be reversed? Should Gasquet suddenly be #4 in the world?
It's a really good system at the moment, giving us an accurate indication of who has played better over a 12 month period.

they should do what wimbledon does. A panel of experts votes on the true number one.

DarkSephiroth
07-08-2007, 07:21 AM
Yeah, Tennis ranking is ridiculous! The player who has won the most tournaments and matches is #1! What an outrage!

goober
07-08-2007, 07:48 AM
Venus ranking is what it is coming into to Wimbledon because she was not winning anything.

If you look at her last 6 tournaments before Wimbledon-


French Open- R32 loss
Istanbul- 2nd rd loss
Warsaw- QF loss
Charleston- SF loss
AMELIA ISLAND - QF loss
Miami- 3rd round loss

If you want a high ranking you have to win consistently. Just because she won Wimbledon doesn't mean she wasn't ranked appropriately. Maybe we should just give Safin a continuous top 5 ranking because he is has beaten top players in the past?

skip1969
07-08-2007, 08:09 AM
no offense to you, attila . . . but i think it's easy to diss the rankings when the player you want is not no. 1. but the system honors consistency, for better or for worse. that's just the way it is.

the venus thing . . . well, like people have said, she hadn't played much, she hadn't won anything. even STILL, people thought she was under-seeded at wimbledon this year.

besides, it's only july. who cares who is ranked what. let's see where everyone is in the fall, after the uso.

David L
07-09-2007, 05:13 AM
I agree that they need to look at how the structure the points. I would like to see the points from the previous year play no impact upon the current year. Defending points just does not make sense to me. Every sport in the world starts the season with everyone even and at zero points.

You are onto something here...we just need to figure it out...We already have this with the race points. League type systems function in the same way. When it comes to finding the best player however, you have to be sure of their pedigree. You can't base this on a few months results. Looking at a player's performance over a year shows it's not a fluke or one off based on a 2 month streak. You have to really earn the No.1 ranking, which is why it's such a badge of honour.

Eric89
07-09-2007, 05:24 AM
What are you guys talking about? the ranking system is fine, 3 of the top 4 were the 4 players left in the draw at the semi of W, and should have been 4 of 4. So what is the problem with it? On the subject of Rafa catching Roger, that wont happen for a while as Roger will just play more tournaments for points. Also some of you have to realize how HUGE a grand slam is, like master series are not small events its just that grand slams are so big

vive le beau jeu !
07-09-2007, 05:25 AM
I agree that they need to look at how the structure the points. I would like to see the points from the previous year play no impact upon the current year. Defending points just does not make sense to me. Every sport in the world starts the season with everyone even and at zero points.

You are onto something here...we just need to figure it out...
We already have this with the race points. League type systems function in the same way. When it comes to finding the best player however, you have to be sure of their pedigree. You can't base this on a few months results. Looking at a player's performance over a year shows it's not a fluke or one off based on a 2 month streak. You have to really earn the No.1 ranking, which is why it's such a badge of honour.
of course... and that's why pete's record with 286 weeks at #1 is impressive !
the race is only an indicator on the points earned since the beginning of the year (and it doesn't include challenger/future events)... it would be ridiculous to say that santoro has been #1 because he was leading the race when he won doha in 2000 ! :rolleyes:

caulcano
07-09-2007, 07:59 AM
Venus Williams is now the lowest ranked player to ever win Wimbledon. And Sererna gave the #1 Sharapova a tennis lesson at the AO.

Way back when becker won both Wimbledon and the US open in one year and yet Ivan Lendl was ranked the year end #1,

Even today, if Nadal wins Wimbledon the Roger Federer will still be ranked #1 in the world.

What are you chewing on?

The ATP race is basically a representation of how well the players are playing from the beginning of the year until this present day. If Nadal continues to have better results than Federer he will become the #1 in the ATP rankings.

The ATP rankings is a representation of how well the players have played for the last 12 months at any given point of time (there's a formula on the ATP site).

If you just want the ATP race as the AP rankings, then who would be seeded #1 at the AO? Some nobody who happens to have won the only tournament prior to the AO?

Attila the tennis Bum
07-09-2007, 10:38 AM
What are you chewing on?

The ATP race is basically a representation of how well the players are playing from the beginning of the year until this present day. If Nadal continues to have better results than Federer he will become the #1 in the ATP rankings.

The ATP rankings is a representation of how well the players have played for the last 12 months at any given point of time (there's a formula on the ATP site).

If you just want the ATP race as the AP rankings, then who would be seeded #1 at the AO? Some nobody who happens to have won the only tournament prior to the AO?


wrong the atp is a representation of how to make promoters and the ATP rich. It is based on how often one plays.

You see it all started in the corrupt 70's. There were three reanking systems...the atp, the grand pix, and the WCT.

Anyway you could be #1 ranked in one and not the other depending on which circuit you played on. So anyway the three of these circuits got together and said:

"hey lets join forces and make one single outfit called the atp. This way pros will be forced to only play for us and we will all be stinking rich"

So now you have a situation wherein the "ATP" is still exploiting players by giving the incentives to play as many tournaments as humanly possible.....even if it means injuring yourself and ruining your career.

In the end its not about truly ranking the real #1....its about $$$$$$.

MoFed
07-09-2007, 11:12 AM
The rankings are performance based, which is what they should be. Nadal has been the best player thus far this year. I'm not sure that you could even call Roger the second best player even though he's won 2 majors. Djoko has had an excellent year so far. This is just the first half of the year.

The question now becomes what will happen in the second half of the year. Nadal has typically run out gas during the hard court season and indoor season. I believe he netted one title in last half of the year. He expends so much energy early on that doesn't have much left in the tank. His conditioning was put to the test these past two weeks. I hope he does get enough rest to show himself a contender this summer. I would love to see another five set final like yesterday. It was nerve racklingly fun and intense.

Hopefully, Roger will have a more successful second half of the year than first. It's funny that even with Roger's 2 majors he has played his best tennis IMO.

rwn
07-09-2007, 11:48 AM
The rankings are performance based, which is what they should be. Nadal has been the best player thus far this year. I'm not sure that you could even call Roger the second best player even though he's won 2 majors. Djoko has had an excellent year so far. This is just the first half of the year.
The question now becomes what will happen in the second half of the year. Nadal has typically run out gas during the hard court season and indoor season. I believe he netted one title in last half of the year. He expends so much energy early on that doesn't have much left in the tank. His conditioning was put to the test these past two weeks. I hope he does get enough rest to show himself a contender this summer. I would love to see another five set final like yesterday. It was nerve racklingly fun and intense.

Hopefully, Roger will have a more successful second half of the year than first. It's funny that even with Roger's 2 majors he has played his best tennis IMO.

You cannot be serious !!!!!!
Djokovic with 1 Masters Series title better than Federer with 2 Grand Slam titles and a Grand Slam final ??? Are you really a fan of Federer ???

Federer is for me the player of the year. He peaked in the tournaments that counted. He also won the biggest prize of all: Wimbledon. Nadal is second. Djokovic is doing well but doesn't have a major prize. Yet.

pow
07-09-2007, 11:51 AM
The reason why Federer will be number 1 even if he loses Wimbledon(even though he didn't :)) is because he has more points for AO, the USO, TMC, and a bunch of other Masters events. He still holds the points for them, Nadal didn't make it as far in those events. Now if Nadal had did what Federer had done last year and Federer does what Nadal did last year, then Nadal will be number 1. There isn't a conspiracy theory on this.

MoFed
07-09-2007, 12:04 PM
You cannot be serious !!!!!!
Djokovic with 1 Masters Series title better than Federer with 2 Grand Slam titles and a Grand Slam final ??? Are you really a fan of Federer ???

Federer is for me the player of the year. He peaked in the tournaments that counted. He also won the biggest prize of all: Wimbledon. Nadal is second. Djokovic is doing well but doesn't have a major prize. Yet.
Let's face it, with the exception of the majors Roger has not performed as well this year. (Don't get me wrong they are the most important tournaments.) But as far as consistency goes so far this year, it's been Nadal and Djokovic. Yes I am a fan of Roger's but I can admit that Roger has not been playing like himself this year. I can be objective. Can you?

Like I said in the second half of my post, the second half of this year will be telling. I know that the majority of Nadal's win have come on clay, but he did win Indian Wells and got to the semis of Miami. Hopefully, Roger will come back for the summer season refreshed and ready to defend his hardcourt titles.

fps
07-09-2007, 12:16 PM
Everyone knows the Grand Slams are the most important tournaments, Fed peaks for them and performs. The rankings also reward the dedication of players who play a lotta tournaments like Davydenko, which is right because he's putting himself out there while others rest up. The results don't lie!

Breaker
07-09-2007, 12:25 PM
Let's face it, with the exception of the majors Roger has not performed as well this year. (Don't get me wrong they are the most important tournaments.) But as far as consistency goes so far this year, it's been Nadal and Djokovic. Yes I am a fan of Roger's but I can admit that Roger has not been playing like himself this year. I can be objective. Can you?

Like I said in the second half of my post, the second half of this year will be telling. I know that the majority of Nadal's win have come on clay, but he did win Indian Wells and got to the semis of Miami. Hopefully, Roger will come back for the summer season refreshed and ready to defend his hardcourt titles.

Roger has made the finals of all but three tournaments he has played this year, he's been just as consistent as Nadal and more than Djokovic. Though Novak did get some bad draws and lose early to Fed several times.

Attila the tennis Bum
07-09-2007, 01:34 PM
Roger has made the finals of all but three tournaments he has played this year, he's been just as consistent as Nadal and more than Djokovic. Though Novak did get some bad draws and lose early to Fed several times.

Fed is a bad example. Clearly he is the number one player.

But let's say he had lost wimbledon. He still would be number one according to the computer. Do you think that would be right ?

bammbamm
07-09-2007, 01:46 PM
Fed is a bad example. Clearly he is the number one player.

But let's say he had lost wimbledon. He still would be number one according to the computer. Do you think that would be right ?

I believe it's cumulative performance. He made it to the FO finals, won the AO. If he lost the Wimby finals, YES, I think Fed should still be on top. The previous tournaments from last year still counts. If Nadal beat Fed in the Wimby and again in the USO then Nadal deserves the crown. Fed is consistent. Nadal was nowhere to be seen in the AO. He wasn't as consistent.

caulcano
07-09-2007, 02:09 PM
Fed is a bad example. Clearly he is the number one player.

But let's say he had lost wimbledon. He still would be number one according to the computer. Do you think that would be right ?

Yes. However, if Nadal had won Wimbledon AND the USO then he'd probably be #1.

Attila the tennis Bum
07-10-2007, 09:26 AM
Yes. However, if Nadal had won Wimbledon AND the USO then he'd probably be #1.

Actually incorrect......sort of.

Boris becker won both Wimbledon and the US open in one year and yet Lendl was the year end #1.:confused:

Everyone thought it was ridiculous including Tennis magazine, the NY times and many others.

Andres
07-10-2007, 09:29 AM
Actually incorrect......sort of.

Boris becker won both Wimbledon and the US open in one year and yet Lendl was the year end #1.:confused:

Everyone thought it was ridiculous including Tennis magazine, the NY times and many others.
But he's talking about Nadal, and Nadal's point to defend. Nadal would be #1 if he had defended RG (he did), and won Wimby and USO (defended RU and QF)

I'm not sure about the points. It depends on the performance of Fed at the USO.

USO and TMC is where we're going to see if Nadal can overtake Fed's #1 spot. What was Nadal results at Canada MS and Cincinatti?

Andres
07-10-2007, 09:34 AM
Let's see... from Wimbledon on:

Nadal defends:

R16 Canada MS
QF Cincinatti MS
QF USO
R16 Stockholm
QF Madrid MS
SF TMC

Federer defends:
Championship Canada MS
R32 Cincinatti MS
Championship USO
Championship Tokyo
Championship Madrid MS
Championship Basel
Championship TMC

Tough task for Fed. He can probably do it again, but Nad and Nole are both hungry guys.

Veeeery interesting year-end! :D

Attila the tennis Bum
07-10-2007, 09:37 AM
Let's see... from Wimbledon on:


but Nad and Nole are both hungry guys.



Good point. In a way I am glad nadal came so close to winning Wimbledon he could taste it. He is going to be very hungry now. If he had won it I think he would have relaxed a bit....but now the chase is on. He is at Feds heels big time!

Pancho
07-10-2007, 09:49 AM
Venus Williams is now the lowest ranked player to ever win Wimbledon. And Sererna gave the #1 Sharapova a tennis lesson at the AO.

Way back when becker won both Wimbledon and the US open in one year and yet Ivan Lendl was ranked the year end #1,

Even today, if Nadal wins Wimbledon the Roger Federer will still be ranked #1 in the world.


Once again Attila, you have proven to be full of shiit! Take that - Federer won, the last set - wasn't even close. Federer won, and Nadal lost. Federer hs 11 Slams and is one of the greatest of all time. Nadal has only a fraction of grand slams of Federer, so there is no comparison there. Attila - your comments are so duummb!

ATXtennisaddict
07-10-2007, 09:55 AM
This thread is complete B.S.

Do some research on what the ranking system means and how it works Attilla.

dukemunson
07-10-2007, 10:47 AM
I agree that they need to look at how the structure the points. I would like to see the points from the previous year play no impact upon the current year. Defending points just does not make sense to me. Every sport in the world starts the season with everyone even and at zero points.

You are onto something here...we just need to figure it out...

No your not onto something here...the ranking system works at this point...not sure why people want to take a working system and change it (this isn't the BCS). Regardless of winning or losing Wimby, Federer's results over the previous year should keep him at #1...starting over each year seems like a step backwards...Whose been the best over the previous year seems more accurate to me then who has been the best over an arbitrary number of months, plus it would really screw with seeding for any early tournaments...leave the system...it works...

dukemunson
07-10-2007, 10:48 AM
Once again Attila, you have proven to be full of shiit! Take that - Federer won, the last set - wasn't even close. Federer won, and Nadal lost. Federer hs 11 Slams and is one of the greatest of all time. Nadal has only a fraction of grand slams of Federer, so there is no comparison there. Attila - your comments are so duummb!

Last set was actually pretty close...Nadal wins any of those 4 break points and Feds in trouble...I had money on Federer and was sweating bullets that those first 4 games as the match was on Nadals racket...

fps
07-10-2007, 02:54 PM
No your not onto something here...the ranking system works at this point...not sure why people want to take a working system and change it (this isn't the BCS). Regardless of winning or losing Wimby, Federer's results over the previous year should keep him at #1...starting over each year seems like a step backwards...Whose been the best over the previous year seems more accurate to me then who has been the best over an arbitrary number of months, plus it would really screw with seeding for any early tournaments...leave the system...it works...

Yes exactly. I don't see how people can argue that the current system has people in the wrong places or doesn't work. The players are the important ones and they seem ok with it..

welcome2petrkordaland
07-10-2007, 03:53 PM
Last set was actually pretty close...Nadal wins any of those 4 break points and Feds in trouble...I had money on Federer and was sweating bullets that those first 4 games as the match was on Nadals racket...

yeah, that last set was anything but a blowout. Fed served at 5-40 twice and on one of those break pts., Nadal missed a routine forehand down the line on the right side of the court, ironically very similar to the one Fed nailed to break Nadal in the 5th set. all things considered, very close final set and yes, the break was on Nadal's racket.

Attila the tennis Bum
07-10-2007, 05:33 PM
Yes exactly. I don't see how people can argue that the current system has people in the wrong places or doesn't work. The players are the important ones and they seem ok with it..

simple.

The Williams sisters are the real #1 & 2 players in the world. Yet the rankings do not reflect that.

zzzbrianxxx
07-10-2007, 05:34 PM
I think that the ranking system is a pretty decent way of creating a ladder for all the players to climb. But I also think there are some issues with it. It doesn't factor in upsets or big matches. I believe that there should be some type of bonus (albeit small -- I'm talking like 50-100 points at MOST) if, let's say a player 50th in the world beats 5th in the world. There should be SOME kind of reward. I think a mathematical formula should be involved, one that factors in the difference in rank and the important of the match (tournament and round -- upsets in the 1st round aren't as worthy as an upset in the 4th round).

Second, I believe that when two top ten's play (Let's say before a semi-final), there should be more points on the line for them. Match ups like these can mean big money for the ATP, and the players should be justly rewarded -- not only for their level of play, but also for having a ridiculous important/huge/doubtful win.

I think these two points should have some factor in the ranking system.

Attila the tennis Bum
07-10-2007, 06:38 PM
when serena won the Australian she was ranked 81. Then she destroyed sharapova the number one player again and she still was not even ranked in the top 20. Something os wrong with that.

The reason the system doesn't work is because it purely mathmatical. Machines cannot understand what is really going on.

jacob
07-10-2007, 06:41 PM
And why Attila, are the Williams sisters the real No 1 and 2?

Just like the two of them Henin has a Grand Slam win, and a semifinal, plus 4 other titles compared to just 1 each for Serena and Venus. And that is only during 2007, add the US OPEN final 2006 aswell and atleast I (and many with me) think Henin should be number 1.

But I guess it´s better if we have a panel (consisting of the great tennismaster Attilla the tennis bum) who randomly decides who the best player is...

Max G.
07-10-2007, 07:14 PM
I think that the ranking system is a pretty decent way of creating a ladder for all the players to climb. But I also think there are some issues with it. It doesn't factor in upsets or big matches. I believe that there should be some type of bonus (albeit small -- I'm talking like 50-100 points at MOST) if, let's say a player 50th in the world beats 5th in the world. There should be SOME kind of reward. I think a mathematical formula should be involved, one that factors in the difference in rank and the important of the match (tournament and round -- upsets in the 1st round aren't as worthy as an upset in the 4th round).

Second, I believe that when two top ten's play (Let's say before a semi-final), there should be more points on the line for them. Match ups like these can mean big money for the ATP, and the players should be justly rewarded -- not only for their level of play, but also for having a ridiculous important/huge/doubtful win.

I think these two points should have some factor in the ranking system.

It's interesting, they actually used to do that in the WTA, give "quality points" based on who you beat. It's a reasonable system, IMO.

As for the second part, they DO give extra ranking points for winning a match later on in the tournament - the difference between getting to the second round and losing in the first round is significantly smaller than the difference between getting to the semis and getting to the quarters.

anchorsteamer
07-10-2007, 11:02 PM
simple.

The Williams sisters are the real #1 & 2 players in the world. Yet the rankings do not reflect that.

No they aren't...they are in the exact right place they belong to be...them being 1 and 2 turns tennis into a sport like gymnastics or figure skating where a judge decides who's best and who wins...the ranking system works, draws even out over 12 months and people are ranked where they should be. The quality win system works in the juniors but not in the pros...sorry...

rwn
07-10-2007, 11:47 PM
Last set was actually pretty close...Nadal wins any of those 4 break points and Feds in trouble...I had money on Federer and was sweating bullets that those first 4 games as the match was on Nadals racket...

That's what happens in tennis. Federer had 10 breakpoints in the first set of the French Open final and lost it 6-3. Nadal won all the important points at the French. Federer won all the important points at Wimbledon. A coincidence?? I don't think so.

rwn
07-11-2007, 12:11 AM
Let's face it, with the exception of the majors Roger has not performed as well this year. (Don't get me wrong they are the most important tournaments.) But as far as consistency goes so far this year, it's been Nadal and Djokovic. Yes I am a fan of Roger's but I can admit that Roger has not been playing like himself this year. I can be objective. Can you?

Like I said in the second half of my post, the second half of this year will be telling. I know that the majority of Nadal's win have come on clay, but he did win Indian Wells and got to the semis of Miami. Hopefully, Roger will come back for the summer season refreshed and ready to defend his hardcourt titles.

Federer played 9 tournaments, he reached 6 finals and won 4 titles. That's not consistent enough ???? It seems to me that you're the one who is not objective here. Did you really think Federer would be in the final of every tournament he played until the end of his career ???
Federer had a little form crisis at Indian Wells/Miami (probably thinking too much about the French Open) that's the only difference with previous years.

Attila the tennis Bum
07-11-2007, 02:57 AM
And why Attila, are the Williams sisters the real No 1 and 2?

Just like the two of them Henin has a Grand Slam win, and a semifinal, plus 4 other titles compared to just 1 each for Serena and Venus. And that is only during 2007, add the US OPEN final 2006 aswell and atleast I (and many with me) think Henin should be number 1.

But I guess it´s better if we have a panel (consisting of the great tennismaster Attilla the tennis bum) who randomly decides who the best player is...

the reason the Williams sisters are the real number one and two players in the world is obvious.

They pretty much can beat anybody. They didnt just beat the computer ranked #1......they destroyed her multiple times
Do you think sharapova is better than either williams' this year?
Do you think the computer is right?

jacob
07-11-2007, 05:38 AM
the reason the Williams sisters are the real number one and two players in the world is obvious.

They pretty much can beat anybody. They didnt just beat the computer ranked #1......they destroyed her multiple times
Do you think sharapova is better than either williams' this year?
Do you think the computer is right?

Well, I agree that Venus has an impressive record against Henin (7-1) but since thier last meeting was back in 2003 I don´t see how that is relevant today. And Serena is 1-2 against Henin in 2007 so I guess Henin can pretty much can beat anyone aswell, infact she has done it on a much more regular basis than either of the Williams sisters.

As for sharapova, her 2007 is probably worse than both of the williams', but her fall of 2006 is very, very good (US OPEN of course the highlight). But since you only think that the most recent results should count, how far back should one go to decide who is number one - one week (than clearly Venus is number one, with Bartoli second), one month (than Henin is a very strong canditate - French Open win, Eastbourne win and Wimbledon semi), six months (I still think Henin, certainly not Serena since AO wouldn´t count) or perhaps a year?

93sq.
07-11-2007, 05:50 AM
Ehm....nadal is 21 and he win only clay tournament..except a MS
Maria is 20...he won on grass,he won usopen...he reached sf in paris and final in melbourne...

Nadal should be no1!?
Maria doesn't!?

Ok...i don't like the ranking system...but you have to realized that rafa is not damaged by this system:he win the same tournaments every year...he "sucks" in the other.
So...if he improve is tennis he will have the opportunity to reach no1:if he keeps on winning on clay...he only has to win tournament on different surfaces to get more points...

pirateofthecarribean
07-11-2007, 06:09 AM
Venus is the lowest WOMEN'S player to win Wimbledon, right? When Goran won in 2001, he was unseeded.

Andres
07-11-2007, 06:11 AM
Canada, Madrid, Indian Wells. Those are 3 hardcourts MS
Dubai, indoor hardcourts. USO, Cincinatti and Australian Open QF.
Two Wimbledon finals. TMC SF, on a carpet (despite being listed as indoor hardcourts, Shanghai's was a carpet)

Points isn't only about WINNING the titles... or runner-ups doesn't count anymore?

93sq.
07-11-2007, 06:12 AM
Venus is the lowest WOMEN'S player to win Wimbledon, right? When Goran won in 2001, he was unseeded.

Yes...he was no125

Attila the tennis Bum
07-11-2007, 07:03 AM
Well, I agree that Venus has an impressive record against Henin (7-1) but since thier last meeting was back in 2003 I don´t see how that is relevant today. And Serena is 1-2 against Henin in 2007 so I guess Henin can pretty much can beat anyone aswell, infact she has done it on a much more regular basis than either of the Williams sisters.

As for sharapova, her 2007 is probably worse than both of the williams', but her fall of 2006 is very, very good (US OPEN of course the highlight). But since you only think that the most recent results should count, how far back should one go to decide who is number one - one week (than clearly Venus is number one, with Bartoli second), one month (than Henin is a very strong canditate - French Open win, Eastbourne win and Wimbledon semi), six months (I still think Henin, certainly not Serena since AO wouldn´t count) or perhaps a year?

First of all I never brought up henin. personally dont follow womens tennis enough and I dont know enough to comment about her. I was however using the Williams merely as an example. The fact that they have destroyed the #1 player (sharapova) at the time maria should count for a lot.

Secondly I think the best example is Boris becker. In one year he won both the US open and Wimbledon and was ranked #2 at year end. How on earth can you possibly defend that?

Finally I never said the most recent results should count. I merely suggested that the current system does not work because in many instances it does not reveal the true number one. Its only a machine.

In no other sport do you have a situation where a machine decided who the best player or the champion is. The reason is because they either have a superbowl, world series , stanley cup. Why should tennis be any different than every other sport on the face of the planet?

In tennis our world series are the grand slams. Who ever wins the most grand slams in one year should be the #1 player in the world. Boris Becker should have been the #1 player simply because he won the most grandslams in one year (US open & Wimbledon). End of story.

Andres
07-11-2007, 07:05 AM
First of all I never brought up henin. personally dont follow womens tennis enough and I dont know enough to comment about her. I was however using the Williams merely as an example. The fact that they have destroyed the #1 player (sharapova) at the time maria should count for a lot.

Secondly I think the best example is Boris becker. In one year he won both the US open and Wimbledon and was ranked #2 at year end. How on earth can you possibly defend that?

Finally I never said the most recent results should count. I merely suggested that the current system does not work because in many instances it does not reveal the true number one. Its only a machine.

In no other sport do you have a situation where a machine decided who the best player or the champion is. The reason is because they either have a superbowl, world series , stanley cup. Why should tennis be any different than every other sport on the face of the planet?

In tennis our world series are the grand slams. Who ever wins the most grand slams in one year should be the #1 player in the world. Boris Becker should have been the #1 player simply because he won the most grandslams in one year (US open & Wimbledon). End of story.
You're forgetting the other two slams, the Masters Cup, and other big tournaments.

Andres
07-11-2007, 07:08 AM
Let's make it better. Let's find out the points for that particular year, and did he defend, so you have to reason to argue anymore, right?

Be right back in 5 minutes ;)

Attila the tennis Bum
07-11-2007, 07:08 AM
Let's make it better. Let's find out the points for that particular year, and did he defend, so you have to reason to argue anymore, right?

Be right back in 5 minutes ;)

sorry I dont get what you are saying.

Attila the tennis Bum
07-11-2007, 07:11 AM
You're forgetting the other two slams, the Masters Cup, and other big tournaments.

Thats my point. they should not matter. They take away from the "Super bowl" of tennis" : The grand slams.

We have to have a championship just like every other sport. Hockey,Baseball, football, Soccer......they all have a deciding "tornament".

Could you imagine if the Yankees won the world series but were not considered the champions because Boston had a better record during the year?:confused:

Only in tennis do we have this insane formulation where a machine decides who the #1 is. It just doesnt work.

Andres
07-11-2007, 07:15 AM
Becker in 1989 won Paris Indoor, Philadelphia, US Open, Wimbledon. Runner up at Masters, Monte Carlo.
In 1988, he won Dallas WCT, Indian Wells, Indianapolis, London / Queen's Club, Masters, Stockholm, Tokyo Indoor, and runner up at Wimbledon.

That means, he didn't defend all the points from the titles/finals from last year, despite winning two slams. His points dropped. 7 titles and one final, against 4 titles and 2 finals.

Ivan Lendl was year end #1 in 1989. In 1989, he won Australian Open, Bordeaux, Forest Hills, Hamburg, Key Biscayne, London / Queen's Club, Montreal / Toronto, Scottsdale, Stockholm, Sydney Indoor, and was runner up at Tokyo Outdoor, US Open. 10 titles, two finals.

In 1988, he won Monte Carlo, Montreal / Toronto, Rome and was runner up at Masters, US Open. 3 titles, two finals

So, Lendl came from 3 titles and two finals to 10 titles and two finals. Improved his season by 7 titles. Including winning a GS where he wasnt even runner up the year before, and defended his final at the USO.

Becker didnt defend his points.

The system works.

Andres
07-11-2007, 07:17 AM
Thats my point. they should not matter. They take away from the "Super bowl" of tennis" : The grand slams.

We have to have a championship just like every other sport. Hockey,Baseball, football, Soccer......they all have a deciding "tornament".

Could you imagine if the Yankees won the world series but were not considered the champions because Boston had a better record during the year?:confused:

Only in tennis do we have this insane formulation where a machine decides who the #1 is. It just doesnt work.
You're considering TEAM sports, without yearly rankings. Until the season is over, no team was ranked above the other. There was no ranking until the playoffs.

Different sports, different rankings. Your whole theory is invalid.

caulcano
07-11-2007, 07:19 AM
simple.

The Williams sisters are the real #1 & 2 players in the world. Yet the rankings do not reflect that.

You fool.

The #1 ranking is a reflection on how a player has performed over 12 months. The Williams sisters haven't performed well AND played that many tournaments in 12 months.

It's not about how good they are/were, otherwise Serena will always #1 until she retires which is absurd.

Hops
07-11-2007, 07:25 AM
Thats my point. they should not matter. They take away from the "Super bowl" of tennis" : The grand slams.

We have to have a championship just like every other sport. Hockey,Baseball, football, Soccer......they all have a deciding "tornament".

Could you imagine if the Yankees won the world series but were not considered the champions because Boston had a better record during the year?:confused:

Only in tennis do we have this insane formulation where a machine decides who the #1 is. It just doesnt work.


you are arguing that tournaments outside the slams have no value in determining a player's worth. They do have value, just not as much as the slams. If you really believe they have no value, in essence you are saying all non-slams are merely exhibitions. Why then should the players put forth any effort at non-slams? Why should people pay money to see them play? Taken to its logical conclusion your worldview would cause the collapse of the tennis tours. Is that what you want?

making an analogy to team sports is invalid because hey, guess what, professional tennis is not set up the same way, with one season and one championship. You're not very bright, are you.

Andres
07-11-2007, 07:27 AM
Thats my point. they should not matter. They take away from the "Super bowl" of tennis" : The grand slams.
No, they do not! Your logic makes no sense!
Since ever, the have been different tourneys, with different points, prize money, and importance.

Winning the 9 Master Series in one year, is still a little bit better than winning the four grand slams. That's how it is, and that's how it's been for years. And that doesn't include the Year-End Masters Cup

And makes sense, you have to win around twice... the ammount of matches than the GS.

jacob
07-11-2007, 07:50 AM
First of all I never brought up henin. personally dont follow womens tennis enough and I dont know enough to comment about her. I was however using the Williams merely as an example. The fact that they have destroyed the #1 player (sharapova) at the time maria should count for a lot.

Secondly I think the best example is Boris becker. In one year he won both the US open and Wimbledon and was ranked #2 at year end. How on earth can you possibly defend that?

Finally I never said the most recent results should count. I merely suggested that the current system does not work because in many instances it does not reveal the true number one. Its only a machine.

In no other sport do you have a situation where a machine decided who the best player or the champion is. The reason is because they either have a superbowl, world series , stanley cup. Why should tennis be any different than every other sport on the face of the planet?

In tennis our world series are the grand slams. Who ever wins the most grand slams in one year should be the #1 player in the world. Boris Becker should have been the #1 player simply because he won the most grandslams in one year (US open & Wimbledon). End of story.


Well, when you said that Serena and Venus were clearly no 1 and 2, you must think they are better than Henin, who right now is the number one?

Thats why I brought her up and I think I showed you why she should be ranked above the both of them.

And if only the Grand Slams should matter, why then are the williams' clearly no 1 and 2? Henin and Sharapova also have one each right now.

Hops
07-11-2007, 07:55 AM
when serena won the Australian she was ranked 81. Then she destroyed sharapova the number one player again and she still was not even ranked in the top 20. Something os wrong with that.

The reason the system doesn't work is because it purely mathmatical. Machines cannot understand what is really going on.

the machines understand perfectly what is going on. And that is the Williams sisters cannot stay healthy enough, or motivated enough, to play a normal season.

To use a baseball analogy that actually works, if there was a vote taken on the mid-season AL MVP, ARod (the other one) would be a logical choice. But let's say that hammy is worse than feared (he didn't look so good running the bases last night). And he's out the rest of the year. Would you still vote him for MVP? After all, he proved he's the best ... but only for half the year.

Part of the deal in proving yourself as an athlete is staying fit enough to participate in the competition. Venus proved she was the best grass player over the past two weeks. She has not proven she can translate that over an entire year.

MoFed
07-11-2007, 08:10 AM
Federer played 9 tournaments, he reached 6 finals and won 4 titles. That's not consistent enough ???? It seems to me that you're the one who is not objective here. Did you really think Federer would be in the final of every tournament he played until the end of his career ???
Federer had a little form crisis at Indian Wells/Miami (probably thinking too much about the French Open) that's the only difference with previous years.
I don't care if he reaches every final of every tournament he plays in. It's just that he hasn't been playing like himself at any of the tournaments he's entered. He's been shanking the ball a lot more and his forehand has been off. With that I still say his form has been a bit off this year. Not in match wins, but in his form on the court.

As for consistancy, I stand corrected.

Attila the tennis Bum
07-11-2007, 08:41 AM
Well, when you said that Serena and Venus were clearly no 1 and 2, you must think they are better than Henin, who right now is the number one?

Thats why I brought her up and I think I showed you why she should be ranked above the both of them.

And if only the Grand Slams should matter, why then are the williams' clearly no 1 and 2? Henin and Sharapova also have one each right now.

The system does work sometimes. For example Fed is clearly the #1 by any system on earth.

However, its interesting that you have no answer to the Boris becker situation. Do you think that its right that he won both the US open and Wimbledon and yet did not finish as the #1?

The same exact situation would have happened this year. if Nadal would have won the FO and Wimby he would still be #2!:confused: . How is that possible???? Obviously there must be something wrong.

In no other sport does this situation exist. For example in baseball you have your standings and they do count for placement in the penant and world series; however it is still the world series that determines who is the champion regardless of their records during the year. Why should tennis be run differently than every single other sport?

Hops
07-11-2007, 08:49 AM
The same exact situation would have happened this year. if Nadal would have won the FO and Wimby he would still be #2!:confused: . How is that possible???? Obviously there must be something wrong.



the only thing wrong is your lack of intelligence

Attila the tennis Bum
07-11-2007, 08:51 AM
the only thing wrong is your lack of intelligence


wow...those are words of wisdom. I guess when you have no answer you have to resort to crap like that.

Hops
07-11-2007, 08:56 AM
wow...those are words of wisdom. I guess when you have no answer you have to resort to crap like that.

what else am I supposed to think? your apparent confusion that Nadal wouldn't be #1 if he won Wimbledon, even given your slam fundamentalism, shows that you don't understand that the rankings are over the last 52 weeks (hint: Roger has two slams also).

So, it's either willful ignorance, or stupidity. take your pick.

Andres
07-11-2007, 08:58 AM
The system does work sometimes. For example Fed is clearly the #1 by any system on earth.

However, its interesting that you have no answer to the Boris becker situation. Do you think that its right that he won both the US open and Wimbledon and yet did not finish as the #1?

The same exact situation would have happened this year. if Nadal would have won the FO and Wimby he would still be #2!:confused: . How is that possible???? Obviously there must be something wrong.

In no other sport does this situation exist. For example in baseball you have your standings and they do count for placement in the penant and world series; however it is still the world series that determines who is the champion regardless of their records during the year. Why should tennis be run differently than every single other sport?
I already answered the Becker situation. Check my posting. Ahh, don't bother, I'll re post it here so you can see it without moving your eyes more than one inch

Andres
07-11-2007, 09:01 AM
Becker in 1989 won Paris Indoor, Philadelphia, US Open, Wimbledon. Runner up at Masters, Monte Carlo.
In 1988, he won Dallas WCT, Indian Wells, Indianapolis, London / Queen's Club, Masters, Stockholm, Tokyo Indoor, and runner up at Wimbledon.

That means, he didn't defend all the points from the titles/finals from last year, despite winning two slams. His points dropped. 7 titles and one final, against 4 titles and 2 finals.

Ivan Lendl was year end #1 in 1989. In 1989, he won Australian Open, Bordeaux, Forest Hills, Hamburg, Key Biscayne, London / Queen's Club, Montreal / Toronto, Scottsdale, Stockholm, Sydney Indoor, and was runner up at Tokyo Outdoor, US Open. 10 titles, two finals.

In 1988, he won Monte Carlo, Montreal / Toronto, Rome and was runner up at Masters, US Open. 3 titles, two finals

So, Lendl came from 3 titles and two finals to 10 titles and two finals. Improved his season by 7 titles. Including winning a GS where he wasnt even runner up the year before, and defended his final at the USO.

Becker didnt defend his points.

The system works.

You're considering TEAM sports, without yearly rankings. Until the season is over, no team was ranked above the other. There was no ranking until the playoffs.

Different sports, different rankings. Your whole theory is invalid.

No, they do not! Your logic makes no sense!
Since ever, the have been different tourneys, with different points, prize money, and importance.

Winning the 9 Master Series in one year, is still a little bit better than winning the four grand slams. That's how it is, and that's how it's been for years. And that doesn't include the Year-End Masters Cup

And makes sense, you have to win around twice... the ammount of matches than the GS.
There. Fest your eyes ;)
Of course, you'll somehow reply to this. And there's nothing we can do about it. Your logic makes no sense. The system works, and the ATP doesn't care what Attila thinks about their system. The other 99.999987% of the people who care about the sport don't complain about the ranking.

That's why you have a Race, and an Entry ranking. Nadal is clearly #1 in this year, but Fed has out-played him in the past 52 weeks.

Deal with it. If Rafa plays like this until the end of the year, he can finish the race #1, and most lilkely, the entry ranking as well.

skip1969
07-11-2007, 09:09 AM
...starting over each year seems like a step backwards...Whose been the best over the previous year seems more accurate to me then who has been the best over an arbitrary number of months, plus it would really screw with seeding for any early tournaments...leave the system...it works...
correct. i think the 52-week system works for tennis cos there is no off-season/close-season. so the 'season' starts every week, so to speak. what counts are your results from the year, as of today.

in other pro sports that have been mentioned, you have a regular season and then some sort of deciding play-off. but often, the so-called 'best' team (in the regular season) does not go on to win the championship. happens all the time, actually. that doesn't negate the achievements of the team with the best record. but the big prize goes to the play-off winner, and that's all anyone cares about. sort of makes regular seasons a waste of time in a way (which is sad cos they last soooo long in the states).

in tennis, every week counts for something, whether you play or decide not to.

jacob
07-11-2007, 09:21 AM
The system does work sometimes. For example Fed is clearly the #1 by any system on earth.

However, its interesting that you have no answer to the Boris becker situation. Do you think that its right that he won both the US open and Wimbledon and yet did not finish as the #1?

The same exact situation would have happened this year. if Nadal would have won the FO and Wimby he would still be #2!:confused: . How is that possible???? Obviously there must be something wrong.

In no other sport does this situation exist. For example in baseball you have your standings and they do count for placement in the penant and world series; however it is still the world series that determines who is the champion regardless of their records during the year. Why should tennis be run differently than every single other sport?


OK, will leave out the the WTA for now since it appears you actually agree with me that Henin should be number 1 (although i´m not sure you do).

On the Becker issue I refer you to Andreas answer, I think 10 titles (including one slam) is better than 2 slams (and just 4 titles overall), so yes I think it´s right that Lendl finished first. If only the slams should matter, whats the point with all the other tournaments?

And I, just like Hops, wonder why Nadal should be number one if he´d won? They both would have had two slams each!

Attila the tennis Bum
07-11-2007, 11:35 AM
what else am I supposed to think? your apparent confusion that Nadal wouldn't be #1 if he won Wimbledon, even given your slam fundamentalism, shows that you don't understand that the rankings are over the last 52 weeks (hint: Roger has two slams also).

So, it's either willful ignorance, or stupidity. take your pick.

actually you are wrong Einstein. Accroding to my hypothetical I said if nadal won both the FO and Wimby he would still be #2.

Now you need to use just a little decutive reasoning here. That would mean that if nadal won wimby fed would have lost it. I know its a stretch but just try and stick withe me here.

That would mean that Fed would only have one grandslam (ao) while nadal would have 2 (fo & wimby= 2 grand slams). Get it??

Now how would the rankings be correct in that situation?

Attila the tennis Bum
07-11-2007, 11:40 AM
There. Fest your eyes ;)
Of course, you'll somehow reply to this. And there's nothing we can do about it. Your logic makes no sense. The system works, and the ATP doesn't care what Attila thinks about their system. The other 99.999987% of the people who care about the sport don't complain about the ranking.

That's why you have a Race, and an Entry ranking. Nadal is clearly #1 in this year, but Fed has out-played him in the past 52 weeks.

Deal with it. If Rafa plays like this until the end of the year, he can finish the race #1, and most lilkely, the entry ranking as well.

No my logic makes complete sense. You see Becker won TWO grand slams (US open & Wimbledon) and beat Lendl !!! Lendl on the other hand only won one grand slam (the FO)....yet Lendl got the #1 ranking!!!! How is that fair?????

In fact most of the world actually disagreed with the computer system. Including Tennis mag and most experts. Run a google search and you will see. The system just does not work.

In Feds case it does work because he is undisputably the #1 but in the Becker situation or the Williams situation it clearly is not correct.

Hops
07-11-2007, 11:46 AM
actually you are wrong Einstein. Accroding to my hypothetical I said if nadal won both the FO and Wimby he would still be #2.

Now you need to use just a little decutive reasoning here. That would mean that if nadal won wimby fed would have lost it. I know its a stretch but just try and stick withe me here.

That would mean that Fed would only have one grandslam (ao) while nadal would have 2 (fo & wimby= 2 grand slams). Get it??

Now how would the rankings be correct in that situation?

Fed would still have ... two slams. USO is still part of the rankings.

try and do some research before you start mouthing off. it's embarrassing.

jacob
07-11-2007, 12:00 PM
OK, I will try one last time before I give up.

Federer, if he lost, would still have the US Open from 2006. So that means both Nadal and Federer have two slams each. Why then, should Nadal be no 1?

And I ask you again - what have the williams sisters achieved the last couple of months, during 2007, or during these last 52 weeks to warrant a place ahead of Henin, the current number one?! Please explain.

Attila the tennis Bum
07-11-2007, 12:25 PM
OK, I will try one last time before I give up.
Federer, if he lost, would still have the US Open from 2006. So that means both Nadal and Federer have two slams each. Why then, should Nadal be no 1?
.

OMG....but we are in 2007!!! we are talking about 2007...holy crap!! In my hypo Fed would only have one grandslam (the AO) and Nadal would have two (FO & Wimby)...yet in 2007 Fed would still be ranked number one. Holy crap you are so dense.

charlottefromca
07-11-2007, 12:28 PM
The rankings system is fine the way it is. Period.

Numbers don't lie.

And how can you not take into account last years performance???!? Then how would we have rankings points in the Australian open and earlier tournaments.

fps
07-11-2007, 12:28 PM
actually you are wrong Einstein. Accroding to my hypothetical I said if nadal won both the FO and Wimby he would still be #2.

Now you need to use just a little decutive reasoning here. That would mean that if nadal won wimby fed would have lost it. I know its a stretch but just try and stick withe me here.

That would mean that Fed would only have one grandslam (ao) while nadal would have 2 (fo & wimby= 2 grand slams). Get it??

Now how would the rankings be correct in that situation?

Haha the deductive reasoning bit killed me, first misspelling deductive, then then taking 2 away from 4 and getting 1. Is there a way to put a completely hypothetical forumite on an ignore list?

Attila the tennis Bum
07-11-2007, 12:33 PM
Haha the deductive reasoning bit killed me, first misspelling deductive, then then taking 2 away from 4 and getting 1. Is there a way to put a completely hypothetical forumite on an ignore list?

Hey dude gimme a break ...I am typing with my new Iphone using my thumbs.

Attila the tennis Bum
07-11-2007, 12:34 PM
The rankings system is fine the way it is. Period.

Numbers don't lie.

And how can you not take into account last years performance???!? Then how would we have rankings points in the Australian open and earlier tournaments.

Because it was last year. Every year should start from zero. Its a brand new year so everyone should get a brand new slate....like in every other sport.

Bottom line...even if Nadal had won Wimby he would be ranked #2...how you think that is fair is just beyond me.

charlottefromca
07-11-2007, 12:35 PM
I don't get it.. wouldn't Roger still have his 2006 US open crown.. so he would still be the current champion for TWO grandslams.

charlottefromca
07-11-2007, 12:35 PM
Because it was last year. Every year should start from zero. Its a brand new year so everyone should get a brand new slate....like in every other sport.

Bottom line...even if Nadal had won Wimby he would be ranked #2...how you think that is fair is just beyond me.

That makes no sense.. how would we have ANY ranking then in the australian if we all start from zero!

anchorsteamer
07-11-2007, 12:43 PM
OMG....but we are in 2007!!! we are talking about 2007...holy crap!! In my hypo Fed would only have one grandslam (the AO) and Nadal would have two (FO & Wimby)...yet in 2007 Fed would still be ranked number one. Holy crap you are so dense.

The quality win system doesn't work, nor could it work. Are you honestly suggesting that if somebody beats someone 6-1, 6-1 they should get more credit then beating someone 6-3 in the third? Are you trying to turn tennis into a subjective sport? The ranking system works because tennis is a year round sport with a ton of tournaments. Grandslams have been designated as the biggest tournaments (most points) but in order to keep people playing all year there has to be other tournaments (that much you have to agree with, right?). As such, the other tournament must have a value, and as such they must count towards ranking. The ranking then becomes a system that determines who has been the best over the previous year. Not over the previous week or month, over the previous year. As such it wouldn't have mattered if Nadal had won Wimbledon, by virtue of the years results (not to mention the hypothetical runner up result at Wimby) Federer would still have won more rounds and tournaments over the year then Nadal, and thus have the higher ranking. The system works...Venus and Serena, while playing at the highest level when they want, deserve the rankings they are at because they dont play often or with any consistency.

Hops
07-11-2007, 12:50 PM
That makes no sense.. how would we have ANY ranking then in the australian if we all start from zero!


Attila is trolling. that's the only possibility at this point.

fps
07-11-2007, 12:51 PM
Hey dude gimme a break ...I am typing with my new Iphone using my thumbs.

Hehe sorry but no way! You were being arrogant and condescending as hell and you got it completely wrong!

Attila the tennis Bum
07-11-2007, 01:23 PM
The quality win system doesn't work, nor could it work. Are you honestly suggesting that if somebody beats someone 6-1, 6-1 they should get more credit then beating someone 6-3 in the third? Are you trying to turn tennis into a subjective sport? The ranking system works because tennis is a year round sport with a ton of tournaments. Grandslams have been designated as the biggest tournaments (most points) but in order to keep people playing all year there has to be other tournaments (that much you have to agree with, right?). As such, the other tournament must have a value, and as such they must count towards ranking. The ranking then becomes a system that determines who has been the best over the previous year. Not over the previous week or month, over the previous year. As such it wouldn't have mattered if Nadal had won Wimbledon, by virtue of the years results (not to mention the hypothetical runner up result at Wimby) Federer would still have won more rounds and tournaments over the year then Nadal, and thus have the higher ranking. The system works...Venus and Serena, while playing at the highest level when they want, deserve the rankings they are at because they dont play often or with any consistency.

Let me answer you with Three questions:

1. Do you think it was fair that even though Boris Becker won both the US open and Wimbledon and he beat the #1 player Lendl...that Boris Becker did not receive the number one ranking?

2. do you think that it was fair that Boris Becker with all of his grand slams and hall of fame entry and possibly one of the ten greatest players of all time never was ranked number 1 by years end?

3. If Nadal would have won both wimbeldon and the FO do you think that he would have deserved to be #1?

Attila the tennis Bum
07-11-2007, 01:25 PM
That makes no sense.. how would we have ANY ranking then in the australian if we all start from zero!

Now that a good point. The answer is simple. The AO should be moved to the summer time like all the other grand slams.

naffi
07-11-2007, 01:28 PM
Basically, especially on the women's tour, players can affect their ranking by how much they play, and not so much who they beat. That's how Hingis was able to hold on to No. 1 for so long. It's why Anna Chakvetadze is in the top 10. She's never beaten a top 10 player. (Sorry, Patty Schnyder doesn't count to me.) But she's played 45 matches this year. That's the flaw. You shouldn't be able to hold on to a high rank if you play all the time and don't beat anyone ranked above you.

http://www.******************.blogspot.com

What are you chewing on?

The ATP race is basically a representation of how well the players are playing from the beginning of the year until this present day. If Nadal continues to have better results than Federer he will become the #1 in the ATP rankings.

The ATP rankings is a representation of how well the players have played for the last 12 months at any given point of time (there's a formula on the ATP site).

If you just want the ATP race as the AP rankings, then who would be seeded #1 at the AO? Some nobody who happens to have won the only tournament prior to the AO?

jacob
07-11-2007, 02:42 PM
Attila//

Yeah, I´m the one being dense...

I´ll leave it to the others on these boards to decide that one.

I will not post in this stupid thread anymore, good luck convincing the others that only the slams matter, and whoever wins the first one each year (and by the way, hows moving the AO gonna change anything? Who would be no 1 for the first months of the year seeing as nothing but the slams matter?) is the true no 1 in the world. You can´t convince me, that for sure.

Bassus
07-11-2007, 03:11 PM
Because it was last year. Every year should start from zero. Its a brand new year so everyone should get a brand new slate....like in every other sport.

Bottom line...even if Nadal had won Wimby he would be ranked #2...how you think that is fair is just beyond me.


Tennis needs a ranking system that carries over from one year to the next if for no other reason than seeding purposes. How would you start the year w/o one? And what if a top player like Federer or Nadal had to skip the Aus Open next year. Do you really think they would not still be the top two players in the world?

The ATP has addressed this problem with the adoption of the annual points race. It is a separate ranking to give an idea of who has had the better year. What else do you want? It is an excellent indicator of the type of year one has had, but you can't possibly use it for seeding.

Bassus
07-11-2007, 03:14 PM
Now that a good point. The answer is simple. The AO should be moved to the summer time like all the other grand slams.

Isn't it played in the summer already?

pow
07-11-2007, 03:15 PM
The ranking system is not opinion based and it shouldn't be. If someone beats the world's #1 doesn't mean they should overtake their position. You must go through and earn/defend as many points as everyone else. Do you even know how the ranking system works? It makes perfect sense why Federer is still number 1.

Example: Just because Bartoli beat Henin in one match, doesn't place her at a higher position than Henin. One match is insignificant in the grand scheme of things when you count how far Henin has gone in the other events.

In Fed's case, he also has more points than Nadal considering Nadal had weak year end results while Fed won back to back tournaments right before winning TMC. He also holds USO champion points. Nadal improved some results this year by winning Indian Wells and going farther in some of his events. He did lose his Dubai points to Federer this year. So if you add it up... you should get the idea.

Bassus
07-11-2007, 03:20 PM
Let's face it, with the exception of the majors Roger has not performed as well this year. (Don't get me wrong they are the most important tournaments.) But as far as consistency goes so far this year, it's been Nadal and Djokovic. Yes I am a fan of Roger's but I can admit that Roger has not been playing like himself this year. I can be objective. Can you?

Like I said in the second half of my post, the second half of this year will be telling. I know that the majority of Nadal's win have come on clay, but he did win Indian Wells and got to the semis of Miami. Hopefully, Roger will come back for the summer season refreshed and ready to defend his hardcourt titles.

What???

Federer has been inconsistent only compared to his own impossibly high standards of 2006. Compared to last year, Federer slipped on the spring hard court season, but before and after it has been fairly equal. He won the Aus both years. He won Dubai this year after losing in the final last year. He broke even at Monte Carlo, fell short at Rome, but made up for that at Hamburg. He broke even at the French and Wimbledon.

The consistency award for 2007 up to this point is between Nadal and Federer, not Djokovic

Max G.
07-11-2007, 03:26 PM
Becker in 1989 won Paris Indoor, Philadelphia, US Open, Wimbledon. Runner up at Masters, Monte Carlo.
In 1988, he won Dallas WCT, Indian Wells, Indianapolis, London / Queen's Club, Masters, Stockholm, Tokyo Indoor, and runner up at Wimbledon.

That means, he didn't defend all the points from the titles/finals from last year, despite winning two slams. His points dropped. 7 titles and one final, against 4 titles and 2 finals.

Ivan Lendl was year end #1 in 1989. In 1989, he won Australian Open, Bordeaux, Forest Hills, Hamburg, Key Biscayne, London / Queen's Club, Montreal / Toronto, Scottsdale, Stockholm, Sydney Indoor, and was runner up at Tokyo Outdoor, US Open. 10 titles, two finals.

In 1988, he won Monte Carlo, Montreal / Toronto, Rome and was runner up at Masters, US Open. 3 titles, two finals

So, Lendl came from 3 titles and two finals to 10 titles and two finals. Improved his season by 7 titles. Including winning a GS where he wasnt even runner up the year before, and defended his final at the USO.

Becker didnt defend his points.

The system works.

Defending the points is irrelevant, is it not? What matters is what he won, not whether the things he won that year were the same things he won last year (defended) or different ones.

Or was defending points worth more than winning them in the first place back then? If I remember correctly, they did change around the ranking system at some point in the 90s, though I could be making that up.

What is more relevant is the comparison of titles won and finals - 10 and 2 for Lendl, 4-2 for Becker. If most of those "extra 6" were big enough tournaments then I can see how Lendl wound up ahead.

pow
07-11-2007, 03:30 PM
What???

Federer has been inconsistent only compared to his own impossibly high standards of 2006. Compared to last year, Federer slipped on the spring hard court season, but before and after it has been fairly equal. He won the Aus both years. He won Dubai this year after losing in the final last year. He broke even at Monte Carlo, fell short at Rome, but made up for that at Hamburg. He broke even at the French and Wimbledon.

The consistency award for 2007 up to this point is between Nadal and Federer, not Djokovic

I agree, but Djokovic is grabbing points left and right like there's no tomorrow.

anchorsteamer
07-11-2007, 03:41 PM
Let me answer you with Three questions:

1. Do you think it was fair that even though Boris Becker won both the US open and Wimbledon and he beat the #1 player Lendl...that Boris Becker did not receive the number one ranking?

2. do you think that it was fair that Boris Becker with all of his grand slams and hall of fame entry and possibly one of the ten greatest players of all time never was ranked number 1 by years end?

3. If Nadal would have won both wimbeldon and the FO do you think that he would have deserved to be #1?

1) Yes. It was perfectly fair, for the simple reason that the ranking system is not biased. People who consistently achieve the most over a given year are rewarded, and those that don't...aren't. Lendl won 10 tournaments to Beckers 4, yes he beat Lendl but why should he get extra points for only doing well several weeks out of the year compared to Lendl's full season? What you are not understanding is that the system you are proposing is not only ridiculous...but completely unfair...

2) YES!!!!! A hall of fame career and grandslam victories dont earn you or deserve you the #1 ranking...you earn and deserve the #1 ranking by winning week in and week out, something he wasn't able to do consistently enough to warrant that #1 ranking.

3) No. The only person that deserves to be #1 is the person with the most points. If Nadal wins Wimby then he has 2 Grand Slams (FO, Wimby) to Fed's 2 (US OPEN, Aussie). Federer finaled the only grandslam he lost (FO) and under this supposition would have finaled Wimbledon as well. This means that both players have 2 grandslams with federer having finaled the two he didnt win and Nadal tossing in two quarterfinal losses...HOW COULD THAT POSSIBLY JUSTIFY HIM JUMPING OVER FEDERER???

Albinoswordfish
07-11-2007, 04:15 PM
I do agree that the ranking system we have right now is at it's best. You see there are so many clay court tournaments out there and so little grass court tournaments it allows players good on clay courts to dominant the rankings. I think there should be a maximum allowed tournament point count on one type of surface. I don't mean to put Nadal down but if there weren't so many clay court tournaments he wouldn't have as much points, but I think he would still be number 2. Now if there were like 4 master shield grass tournaments Federer would be #1 by far, even farther than it is now.

Is it fair that Nadal is going to get even more points by playing another clay tournament this year?

caulcano
07-12-2007, 02:36 AM
OMG....but we are in 2007!!! we are talking about 2007...holy crap!! In my hypo Fed would only have one grandslam (the AO) and Nadal would have two (FO & Wimby)...yet in 2007 Fed would still be ranked number one. Holy crap you are so dense.


For you just ignore the ATP Rankings, instead look at the ATP race.

Btw, Federer is ranked #1 in July 2007 (in my book).

Andres
07-12-2007, 04:52 AM
Because it was last year. Every year should start from zero. Its a brand new year so everyone should get a brand new slate....like in every other sport.

Bottom line...even if Nadal had won Wimby he would be ranked #2...how you think that is fair is just beyond me.
That's the Race. You have an ENTIIIIIIIIIIRE different ranking so you can drool and fest your eyes in it. And look at that! Nadal is #1 !!! Nadal had, so far, a better year than Fed.

Happy now? You have your own ranking with Nadal #1. Ahora andá a llorarle a Gardel, y a la Iglesia ;)

Andres
07-12-2007, 04:58 AM
OMG....but we are in 2007!!! we are talking about 2007...holy crap!! In my hypo Fed would only have one grandslam (the AO) and Nadal would have two (FO & Wimby)...yet in 2007 Fed would still be ranked number one. Holy crap you are so dense.
In 2007, Federer made it to 3 GS finals. Nadal only two.
Federer won 2 of them. Nadal only 1.

Let's add some hypothetical points:

Fed 2007: W, F, W
Nadal 2007, QF, W, F

1000 + 700 + 1000 = 2700 (Federer 2007)
250 + 1000 + 700 = 1950 (Nadal 2007)

Your scenario:

Fed AtB 2007: W, F, F
Nad AtB 2007: QF, W, W

1000 + 700 + 700 = 2400 (Federer 2007 if Nadal won Wimbledon)
250 + 1000 + 1000 = 2250 (Nadal 2007 with Wimbledon)

Count the points. Federer still had the better year, if only Grand Slams count (like you want to make it look)

Should I go any further, or did I prove my point already?
Even if Nadal won 2 GS, "GS wise" Federer has the better year

Andres
07-12-2007, 05:02 PM
Well... Attila didn't reply to the thread at all. I wonder why is that...
Can I say OWNED ? ;)

(And this comes from a guy who DOESN'T like Federer but, for a change, is an objetive tennis fan)

Alexandros
07-12-2007, 05:59 PM
I'll add another shot Andres:

they should do what wimbledon does. A panel of experts votes on the true number one.

Do you even have half a clue what you are talking about? There is no Wimbldeon panel that decides anything. They use a formula (50% grass court results for past two years and 50% current ATP ranking).

pow
07-12-2007, 06:21 PM
That's the ATP race you're asking for not the rankings system. If everyone starts at 0 at the beginning of every year, how does any #1 player keep their streak going? If you made the winner of the first tournament of the year #1 in the world, now that, would be unfair.

The tennis guy
07-12-2007, 07:51 PM
I don't care if he reaches every final of every tournament he plays in. It's just that he hasn't been playing like himself at any of the tournaments he's entered. He's been shanking the ball a lot more and his forehand has been off. With that I still say his form has been a bit off this year. Not in match wins, but in his form on the court.


Did you watch Australia Open this year? He beat Djokovic, Roddick so bad, he wasn't playing like himself?

Shabazza
07-12-2007, 08:03 PM
Why respond to a thread of someone who displayed time and time again that his cognitive skills are at a level of someone in grade-school, at best.
Attila the tennis Bum, a poor soul. What a pitty.

rwn
07-13-2007, 01:16 AM
I don't care if he reaches every final of every tournament he plays in. It's just that he hasn't been playing like himself at any of the tournaments he's entered. He's been shanking the ball a lot more and his forehand has been off. With that I still say his form has been a bit off this year. Not in match wins, but in his form on the court.

As for consistancy, I stand corrected.

OK. But it's very possible that Federer is more motivated for the grand slam tournaments now. He played his best tennis in those three tournaments. He beat Djokovic, Roddick and Gonzalez at the AO for instance in straight sets. Another example: Federer's serve at Wimbledon was amazing. He basically served Safin and Gasquet off the court. He also had a better winner/unforced error percentage in the Wimbledon final than last year. So I don't see much problems with Federer's form this year.

rwn
07-13-2007, 01:27 AM
Did you watch Australia Open this year? He beat Djokovic, Roddick so bad, he wasn't playing like himself?

Federer lost 5 sets last year at the Australian Open. He had very tough matches with Haas and Davydenko. The form was a lot better this year at the AO. This only shows how soon people forget.

There was a lot of talk after the AO last year that Federer was in decline, the others were catching him and more. And now after one 5-set match people are saying the same thing again.

MoFed
07-13-2007, 09:50 AM
Yes I did watch AO. He did come out and play there very well. But since he played Dubai he was a little off. I'm not saying that he hasn't had the results, because he has. I think the weight of history has been playing it's part in his mind since Australia. Now that the French and Wimbledon are over he will relax and not shank so many balls and his forehand will be more consistant.

MoFed
07-13-2007, 09:55 AM
OK. But it's very possible that Federer is more motivated for the grand slam tournaments now. He played his best tennis in those three tournaments. He beat Djokovic, Roddick and Gonzalez at the AO for instance in straight sets. Another example: Federer's serve at Wimbledon was amazing. He basically served Safin and Gasquet off the court. He also had a better winner/unforced error percentage in the Wimbledon final than last year. So I don't see much problems with Federer's form this year.
That's true, he probably is more motivated in the slams. He's been in the finals of all three slams. He played the final of Wimbledon wonderfully. It was honestly the best tennis I'd seen him play all year. I know he murderlized Roddick in the semis of AO and beat Gonzalez handily, but the Wimby final he showed a lot of heart and had dig deep to come through with a win. The finals was an excellent service display and he didn't shank as many balls as he had since Dubai.

Attila the tennis Bum
07-31-2007, 03:29 PM
I'll add another shot Andres:



Do you even have half a clue what you are talking about? There is no Wimbldeon panel that decides anything. They use a formula (50% grass court results for past two years and 50% current ATP ranking).

Where did you get that from?

Andres
07-31-2007, 06:18 PM
Where did you get that from?
Wimbledon.org.

They don't have an expert panel deciding the seeds, get your facts straight. They have a mathematical formula, which adds the ATP Entry points + grasscourt results in the last 12 months + grasscourts results of the 12 months before that

Attila the tennis Bum
08-01-2007, 05:35 AM
Wimbledon.org.

They don't have an expert panel deciding the seeds, get your facts straight. They have a mathematical formula, which adds the ATP Entry points + grasscourt results in the last 12 months + grasscourts results of the 12 months before that

I went to wimbledon.org and I dont see what you are talking about. Why don't you cut and paste it unless of course you just made it up.

Andres
08-01-2007, 05:40 AM
Gentlemen's Singles Seeding at Wimbledon

The seeds are the top 32 players on the ATP Entry System Position (ESP), BUT then rearranged on a surface-based system. A seeding committee is not required for the Gentlemen’s Singles since the seeding order is determined using an objective and transparent system to reflect more accurately an individual player’s grass court achievements: The formula is:

· Take ESP points at 18 June 2007
· Add 100% points earned for all grass court tournaments in the past 12 months
· Add 75% points earned for best grass court tournament in the 12 months before that.

http://www.wimbledon.org/en_GB/news/articles/2007-06-20/200706201182331054843.html

Took me 2 minutes to find it.

Attila the tennis Bum
08-01-2007, 05:51 AM
Actually you are right but only recently. In the past Wimbledon did use a panel and only recently changed to a surface based ranking system. This simply proves my point even more!!!

Because of you I found an article from tennis week that also criticizes the current system and says the new sytem at Wimbledon should be followed.:

"Arguments against strictly following the rankings are:


The majors are run by the ITF, not the ATP and WTA. The pro tours administer the rankings, not the ITF.

The surfaces and conditions are different at each of the majors. While the majors are contested on surfaces similar to those events played throughout the year, the current tennis calendar allows for a relatively short build up to each major (Australia has two weeks of competition prior, Paris has six weeks of clay, Wimbledon only two weeks of grass, and the U.S. Open has six weeks of hard court play). Results on one surface don’t necessarily indicate success on another.

The majors are well, "majors." They are much more important in tennis than all the other tour events. Their status, prestige, and historical significance makes them stand out. The evolution of the game has centered around the four majors for nearly 100 years. Players prepare and peak for the majors (and not for Acapulco, Bastad, Charleston, Dubai, Estoril, Frankfurt, etc. etc. etc.). The majors should have the ability to deviate from the computer rankings, and not be beholden to the pro tour’s system for assigning points and ratings.

The majors ought to do everything they can to showcase their event and the best players in the sport. A revised method of seeding is not the same as fixing the draw. Matches still must be played. And the competitive nature of the sport will mean upsets will still occur.
All ranking points shouldn’t be equal! But they are. The current ranking system allows players to earn points based on results in the preceding 52 weeks. A ranking is a reflection of a year’s worth of tournament results. Going into the French Open, the points garnered from a tournament win the previous year on grass or last summer’s hard court season count equally (assuming the same tournament status designated by the ATP/WTA Tours) as a tournament win on clay in the weeks preceding Paris. Momentum can be a serious factor in determining the outcome of a major. I believe that recent success on the surface of the upcoming Slam should count for more when considering seeding. Not results that are nearly a year old and contested on a different surface.

Past performance at a specific major can be a large predictor of future success at that event. Some players just perform better on the big stage, or at certain events.

Historically, Wimbledon was the only major that would deviate from the computer rankings. The AELTC based seedings on previous grass court results and Wimbledon results. Due to the close scheduling of Paris and Wimbledon, terrific results in Paris bumped up the rankings of clay court players, who were not always prone to good results on grass. Wimbledon now follows a formula for determining seeding, which takes into account prior grass court matches, owing to the fact that so few tournaments are played on grass. This is commendable, and provides an opportunity for the most balanced draw possible. If Wimbledon can devise a formula for weighting grass court results, surely the French Federation and the USTA can find a way to do something similar? "

The full article gets into it far more. Its worth reading:

http://www.sportsmediainc.com/tennisweek/index.cfm?func=showarticle&newsid=16977

WBF
08-01-2007, 05:57 AM
How does the ranking actually work?

If it doesn't, shouldn't it take into account recent results prioritized over past results, big events over small events, and averages vs. additive point systems?

I'm assuming it does all this, anything else would simply be illogical.

Attila the tennis Bum
08-01-2007, 07:30 AM
How does the ranking actually work?

If it doesn't, shouldn't it take into account recent results prioritized over past results, big events over small events, and averages vs. additive point systems?

I'm assuming it does all this, anything else would simply be illogical.

Its an incentive based system designed to make money for promoters. Simply put the more you play then the higher your ranking. Thats why Venus Williams was the lowest ranked player to ever win Wimbledon. She was ranked so low because she did not play often....but we all know that her low ranking did not really reflect her true talent.

pirateofthecarribean
08-01-2007, 08:11 AM
Its an incentive based system designed to make money for promoters. Simply put the more you play then the higher your ranking. Thats why Venus Williams was the lowest ranked player to ever win Wimbledon. She was ranked so low because she did not play often....but we all know that her low ranking did not really reflect her true talent.

Actually, Venus did play a lot after Australian Open this year, with fair achievements before Wimbledon. I always wondered why her ranking was so low going into Wimbledon? :confused: Anyhow..... didn't make a difference. :D

Attila the tennis Bum
08-01-2007, 09:50 AM
Actually, Venus did play a lot after Australian Open this year, with fair achievements before Wimbledon. I always wondered why her ranking was so low going into Wimbledon? :confused: Anyhow..... didn't make a difference. :D

I think you mean Serena? Who by the way was ranked really low for the AO and beat the crap out of the #1 seed at the AO and again after. I think she was ranked 80 something in the world. Clearly something is wrong with the ranking system as it stands today.

keithchircop
08-01-2007, 09:59 AM
Yeah, let's change to a "make Nadal first" ranking system.

Attila the tennis Bum
08-01-2007, 10:01 AM
Yeah, let's change to a "make Nadal first" ranking system.

Well he should be ranked first for the French open don't you think?

Tennis_Goodness
08-01-2007, 10:37 AM
The ranking system is very good. It's really accurate actually.

Attila the tennis Bum
08-01-2007, 10:51 AM
The ranking system is very good. It's really accurate actually.

"Roland Garros has the highest number of seeded casualties every year. Many unseeded or lower seeded players are much better clay court players than their overall rankings indicate. I advocate for a better seeding procedure as to showcase and maximize the talent throughout the draw — to have an event where superior players will not meet in early rounds. As the tours evolve I hope there is real consideration for allowing an adjustment for seeding at the majors.

While I advocate employing such a seeding system now, I do wish the ITF and the French Tennis Federation would employ a formula for incorporating clay court results for seeding for next year's French Open. Andy Roddick currently is No. 3, 25 points ahead of Nikolay Davydenko. Fernando Gonzalez and Novak Djokovic are ranked fifth and sixth respectively, both have 2,810 ranking points. If any formula were used that incorporated clay results, Djokovic and Gonzalez would both be ahead of Roddick, no question. Roddick’s clay record this year is 1-1. Last year he was 5-3 (ATP matches only, and not counting his retirement vs. Nicolas Massu in ATP Team Cup.) Since the start of 2006, Roddick’s record in clay court tournaments, plus Davis Cup and ATP Team Cup results on clay, Roddick is a staggering 8-7 on clay. Sorry, but there is absolutely no reason Andy should be seeded third at the French Open. Personally I wouldn’t even seed him in the top eight. I’d like to hear one good argument, apart from his No. 3 ranking, why Andy should be seeded in the top four for Paris.

Roddick has been ranked in the top five every year since 2003. His seedings in Paris have been No. 6 in 2003 (lost in first round), No. 2 in 2004 (lost second round), No. 2 in 2005 (lost first round), No. 5 in 2006 (lost second round). Pete Sampras was seeded first or second in Paris every year from 1993-2000. During that eight year stretch he made the semis once, the quarters twice, and lost in the first or second round on four occasions. In both cases, these highly-ranked American stars couldn’t come close to living up to their seedings because they didn’t have the clay court experience or results to see them through the draw at such a lofty seed.

For those of you upset that I would demote Roddick and James Blake for seeding at Roland Garros, I would suspect that a system that took into account hard-court play would definitely favor Roddick and Blake (among other Americans), and their seeding for U.S. Open could see a bump from their official ranking.

My proposal isn't an anti-American thing, just a reality check for the majors.

Djokovic beat Gonzalez in the second round of Paris last year and went on to reach the quarters before losing to defending champion Rafael Nadal. He won Estoril and reached the quarterfinals in Rome and Hamburg this year.

Gonzalez reached the Rome final this year and Hamburg quarterfinal, losing to Nadal both times. He did well on clay last year, reaching the semifinal in Monte Carlo and quarterfinal in Rome.

Davydenko should be seeded in top four based on his record and clay results.

Another curious situation is with Blake and Tommy Robredo, who lost early in Hamburg, so all his points came off, dropping him behind Blake. However, Blake’s clay record this year is 5-3, with three of those wins coming in Houston. Last year Blake was 4-4 on clay. Robredo slipped a bit on clay this year compared to last year. He is 7-5 this year, reaching semis in Estoril and quarters in Rome. Last year Robredo was 22-6 on clay, winning two titles. Robredo reached the quarters at Roland Garros in 2003 and 2005. He has never fared worse than the round of 16, except 2002 when he lost to Agassi in the third round. Blake has never gotten past the third round at Roland Garros. Robredo must be seeded ahead of Blake. The seeding formula applies to the men much more than the women.

Martina Hingis’ withdrawal from Paris will enable ninth-ranked Serena Williams to be seeded in the top eight, which is an adjustment that should have been made, even if Hingis had not withdrawn." Tennis Week

Attila the tennis Bum
08-01-2007, 11:10 AM
finally another example is 1989. Becker should have been ranked #1 in the world but somehow Lendl was ranked #1 simply because he played more often.

1989 was possibly the pinnacle of Becker's career. He defeated Edberg in straight sets in the Wimbledon final, and then beat Lendl in the final of the U.S. Open. The World No. 1 ranking, however, still eluded him. How the hell is that fair????

dukemunson
08-01-2007, 12:21 PM
finally another example is 1989. Becker should have been ranked #1 in the world but somehow Lendl was ranked #1 simply because he played more often.

1989 was possibly the pinnacle of Becker's career. He defeated Edberg in straight sets in the Wimbledon final, and then beat Lendl in the final of the U.S. Open. The World No. 1 ranking, however, still eluded him. How the hell is that fair????

Because Lendl more tournaments (10-4 I believe)...how the hell would becker being #1 be fair????

dukemunson
08-01-2007, 12:25 PM
I think you mean Serena? Who by the way was ranked really low for the AO and beat the crap out of the #1 seed at the AO and again after. I think she was ranked 80 something in the world. Clearly something is wrong with the ranking system as it stands today.

Clearly something is wrong with the schedule Serena plays...the ranking system works...over the course of a year the better players rise....

Attila the tennis Bum
08-01-2007, 12:33 PM
Because Lendl more tournaments (10-4 I believe)...how the hell would becker being #1 be fair????

well he beat Lendl at the US Open and he also won Wimbledon. The only grand slam Lendl won that year was the AO back in January. So how does he end up being the world #1????

If winning both the US Open and Wimbledon does not qualify you to be the #1 ranked player in the world then something is very wrong with the system.

The majors are well, "majors." They are much more important in tennis than all the other tour events. Their status, prestige, and historical significance makes them stand out. The evolution of the game has centered around the four majors for nearly 100 years. Players prepare and peak for the majors (and not for Acapulco, Bastad, Charleston, Dubai, Estoril, Frankfurt, etc. etc. etc.). The majors should have the ability to deviate from the computer rankings, and not be beholden to the pro tour’s system for assigning points and ratings.

Attila the tennis Bum
08-01-2007, 12:34 PM
"Arguments against strictly following the rankings are:


The majors are run by the ITF, not the ATP and WTA. The pro tours administer the rankings, not the ITF.

The surfaces and conditions are different at each of the majors. While the majors are contested on surfaces similar to those events played throughout the year, the current tennis calendar allows for a relatively short build up to each major (Australia has two weeks of competition prior, Paris has six weeks of clay, Wimbledon only two weeks of grass, and the U.S. Open has six weeks of hard court play). Results on one surface don’t necessarily indicate success on another.

The majors are well, "majors." They are much more important in tennis than all the other tour events. Their status, prestige, and historical significance makes them stand out. The evolution of the game has centered around the four majors for nearly 100 years. Players prepare and peak for the majors (and not for Acapulco, Bastad, Charleston, Dubai, Estoril, Frankfurt, etc. etc. etc.). The majors should have the ability to deviate from the computer rankings, and not be beholden to the pro tour’s system for assigning points and ratings.

The majors ought to do everything they can to showcase their event and the best players in the sport. A revised method of seeding is not the same as fixing the draw. Matches still must be played. And the competitive nature of the sport will mean upsets will still occur.
All ranking points shouldn’t be equal! But they are. The current ranking system allows players to earn points based on results in the preceding 52 weeks. A ranking is a reflection of a year’s worth of tournament results. Going into the French Open, the points garnered from a tournament win the previous year on grass or last summer’s hard court season count equally (assuming the same tournament status designated by the ATP/WTA Tours) as a tournament win on clay in the weeks preceding Paris. Momentum can be a serious factor in determining the outcome of a major. I believe that recent success on the surface of the upcoming Slam should count for more when considering seeding. Not results that are nearly a year old and contested on a different surface.

Past performance at a specific major can be a large predictor of future success at that event. Some players just perform better on the big stage, or at certain events.

Historically, Wimbledon was the only major that would deviate from the computer rankings. The AELTC based seedings on previous grass court results and Wimbledon results. Due to the close scheduling of Paris and Wimbledon, terrific results in Paris bumped up the rankings of clay court players, who were not always prone to good results on grass. Wimbledon now follows a formula for determining seeding, which takes into account prior grass court matches, owing to the fact that so few tournaments are played on grass. This is commendable, and provides an opportunity for the most balanced draw possible. If Wimbledon can devise a formula for weighting grass court results, surely the French Federation and the USTA can find a way to do something similar? "

The full article gets into it far more. Its worth reading:

http://www.sportsmediainc.com/tennisweek/index.cfm?func=showarticle&newsid=16977

I think this may have gotten lost because no one responded to it.

dukemunson
08-01-2007, 12:55 PM
You are right, Becker won 2 slams to Lendl's 1 slam in 1989. Here is the breakdown:

Aussie:
Lendl- won
Becker- lost 4th round

French:
Lendl- lost 4th round
Becker- lost Semis

Wimby:
Lendl- lost semis
Becker- won

US Open:
Lendl- finals
Becker- won

What cant be overlooked though is:

Total tournaments won in 1989:
Lendl- 10
Becker 4

Becker had the edge if one just looked at slams, but it wasn't an overwhelming edge and as soon as you factor in consistency like that from Lendl its fairly obvious (and obviously fair) why and how Lendl was the deserved year end #1 in 1989.

anchorsteamer
08-01-2007, 01:10 PM
Still cant believe Becker won that US Open...Rostagno had him beat in the second round...that was unbelievable.

As for the ranking system...it works, what are you talking about. I agree seeding should be tweaked a bit at the majors (like at wimby) but the ranking system is fine. Good results in majors is rewarded (huge difference in point distribution) but being consistent with your results all year balances out everything and gives a true indication of how good someone is. Your argument makes sense on seeding but makes absolutely no sense in regards to ranking...

Attila the tennis Bum
08-01-2007, 01:53 PM
Still cant believe Becker won that US Open...Rostagno had him beat in the second round...that was unbelievable.

As for the ranking system...it works, what are you talking about. I agree seeding should be tweaked a bit at the majors (like at wimby) but the ranking system is fine. Good results in majors is rewarded (huge difference in point distribution) but being consistent with your results all year balances out everything and gives a true indication of how good someone is. Your argument makes sense on seeding but makes absolutely no sense in regards to ranking...

Well a lot of people disagree with that. As you can see the tennis week article proposes a surface based ranking system like at Wiombledon. Do you really think that its fair that Roddick be ranked as the #3 seed at the French?

Furthermore almost the entire world disagreed with the ranking system when becker won both Wimbledon and the US Open and still was the #2 player in the world. In fact the same thing holds true today....for example....

Lets say Nadal won both the FO & Wimbledon.....can you believe that he would still be ranked #2 in the world???? How is that right????

Steve Dykstra
08-01-2007, 01:59 PM
Lets say Nadal won both the FO & Wimbledon.....can you believe that he would still be ranked #2 in the world???? How is that right????

Well, Federer would have won the US Open and the Australian Open, so they would each have two grand slams in the last 52 weeks covered by the rankings at present time. Federer would also have two grand slam finals in the past year, while Nadal would only have two grand slam quarterfinals, so I would still consider Federer the number one player.

Attila the tennis Bum
08-01-2007, 02:06 PM
Well, Federer would have won the US Open and the Australian Open, so they would each have two grand slams in the last 52 weeks covered by the rankings at present time. Federer would also have two grand slam finals in the past year, while Nadal would only have two grand slam quarterfinals, so I would still consider Federer the number one player.

would you really? So If in 2007 Nadal had won both Wimbledon and The US OPEN beating Federer in each you would still think that Fed deserves the #1 spot???:confused:

anchorsteamer
08-01-2007, 02:11 PM
Well a lot of people disagree with that. As you can see the tennis week article proposes a surface based ranking system like at Wiombledon. Do you really think that its fair that Roddick be ranked as the #3 seed at the French?

Furthermore almost the entire world disagreed with the ranking system when becker won both Wimbledon and the US Open and still was the #2 player in the world. In fact the same thing holds true today....for example....

Lets say Nadal won both the FO & Wimbledon.....can you believe that he would still be ranked #2 in the world???? How is that right????

I agreed with you on the seeding, it should be changed so as to be more indicative of ability and probably results on that surface.

Who is this "almost entire world" you refer to? Lendl won 6 more tournaments then Becker in 1989, and while Becker had the extra slam Lendl finaled that same slam which kept him within striking distance of Becker. When he won most of the other tournies he entered, compared to Beckers struggles (only taking 4 tournaments) he distanced himself and was the deserved #1.

You have argued the Nadal point so many times yet remain unable to understand it. If Nadal had won Wimbledon he would have 2 slams...BUT SO WOULD FEDERER!!! Federer would also have 2 final appearances to go along with his two slams (Nadal would have 2 quarterfinals to go along with his 2 titles). HOW WOULD THAT IN ANY CONTEXT OR WAY PUT NADAL AHEAD OF FEDERER? And no matter how many times you miss this point, tournies throughout the year are important...so even with Nadal as the wimby champ Federer's second half of last year would have him far ahead still (in addition to previously described better slam results). Whats your point????

anchorsteamer
08-01-2007, 02:12 PM
would you really? So If in 2007 Nadal had won both Wimbledon and The US OPEN beating Federer in each you would still think that Fed deserves the #1 spot???:confused:

what are you saying here?

krz
08-01-2007, 05:00 PM
Whats your point? Are you trying to argue that Nadal deserves to be #1 right now? Because even the biggest Nadal supporters here arn't going to agree with that.

all I see here is waaaa my favorite player isn't number 1 and he should be

BigServer1
08-01-2007, 05:43 PM
Well a lot of people disagree with that. As you can see the tennis week article proposes a surface based ranking system like at Wiombledon. Do you really think that its fair that Roddick be ranked as the #3 seed at the French?

Furthermore almost the entire world disagreed with the ranking system when becker won both Wimbledon and the US Open and still was the #2 player in the world. In fact the same thing holds true today....for example....

Lets say Nadal won both the FO & Wimbledon.....can you believe that he would still be ranked #2 in the world???? How is that right????

Are you still on this kick? What ifs are total BS when it comes to arguments. Nadal didn't win Wimbledon. Maybe you can use that argument leading up to it next year, but for now, it's done. If Nadal were to beat Federer in the finals of the US Open, one would have to think Fed still had the better year if he and Nadal won a similar number of tournaments of similar caliber. W,F,W,F trumps QF,W,F,W any day. Two wins and two finals equals more ranking points as well, so again, your argument doesn't hold up.

As for Nadal being #1 at the FO, I'm all for that. He's shown he's the best on clay and until someone beats him in Paris it should stay that way. I think you have a better chance of winning that argument than the "what if Nadal won a tournament that he lost almost a month ago" argument.

BigServer1
08-01-2007, 05:47 PM
would you really? So If in 2007 Nadal had won both Wimbledon and The US OPEN beating Federer in each you would still think that Fed deserves the #1 spot???:confused:

That is a completely different question than you asked before. There is not a sane person that would say Roger would be #1 after Nadal won 3 slams in a year. Again, you're using the IF Nadal had won Wimbledon argument. He didn't win, and playing this desperate what if game to try and push your opinion that Nadal should be #1 is sad. Go back to questioning Federer's sexuality and being a troll.

It's posters like you that make me come around here less and less...

Steve Dykstra
08-01-2007, 09:24 PM
would you really? So If in 2007 Nadal had won both Wimbledon and The US OPEN beating Federer in each you would still think that Fed deserves the #1 spot???:confused:

You just completely changed the debate we were having. Before we were discussing the hypothetical of if Nadal had won both the FO and W over Federer and all of a sudden you changed it to W and the US. How can I possibly have a debate with a person who cannot hold a steady argument?

pow
08-01-2007, 11:42 PM
I can't believe this thread is still going...

Look at the way the system works, you win it, you get points, you keep points until the event is played again in which case, you try to defend points. Simple as that.
Take out a little calculator and total up their points please. Nadal is #2 for a reason, not because Rod Laver or (throw in random person) said so.
I know you really like Nadal and would love it if he was #1 in the world at everything... won all the slams along with the French... but that's just not the case. Federer still edges Nadal with points from mid-year to year-end events.

If Federer and Nadal switched their tournament results with each other, Nadal would be #1, nobody could lie their way around that... but for the time being... Federer is Federer and Nadal is Nadal.
The man is not trying to hold Nadal down... ok?

Attila the tennis Bum
08-02-2007, 04:42 AM
That is a completely different question than you asked before. There is not a sane person that would say Roger would be #1 after Nadal won 3 slams in a year. Again, you're using the IF Nadal had won Wimbledon argument. He didn't win, and playing this desperate what if game to try and push your opinion that Nadal should be #1 is sad. Go back to questioning Federer's sexuality and being a troll.

It's posters like you that make me come around here less and less...

I have not questioned Fed sexuality...but now we see your real agenda.

Secondly I did make a typo and will change it. In other words the Hypo is this:

If Nadal won both Wimbledon and the French open in 2007 he would still be the #2 player in the world today.

Don't you see something wrong with that??? Its exacly the same as :

When in 1989 Becker actually did win the US open and Wimbledon while Lendl only one the AO, Lendl still was #1 and Becker was #2.


Don't you see something very wrong with that????

Attila the tennis Bum
08-02-2007, 04:45 AM
Whats your point? Are you trying to argue that Nadal deserves to be #1 right now? Because even the biggest Nadal supporters here arn't going to agree with that.

all I see here is waaaa my favorite player isn't number 1 and he should be

No I am not. Maybe thats why I am getting all this animosity. Federer deserves the #1 ranking on everything except clay.

I am proposing a surface based ranking system and a system that gives far far more weight to Wimbledon versus a bunch of little tournaments like dubai added all up.

Attila the tennis Bum
08-02-2007, 04:52 AM
I agreed with you on the seeding, it should be changed so as to be more indicative of ability and probably results on that surface.

Who is this "almost entire world" you refer to? Lendl won 6 more tournaments then Becker in 1989, and while Becker had the extra slam Lendl finaled that same slam which kept him within striking distance of Becker. When he won most of the other tournies he entered, compared to Beckers struggles (only taking 4 tournaments) he distanced himself and was the deserved #1.

You have argued the Nadal point so many times yet remain unable to understand it. If Nadal had won Wimbledon he would have 2 slams...BUT SO WOULD FEDERER!!! Federer would also have 2 final appearances to go along with his two slams (Nadal would have 2 quarterfinals to go along with his 2 titles). HOW WOULD THAT IN ANY CONTEXT OR WAY PUT NADAL AHEAD OF FEDERER? And no matter how many times you miss this point, tournies throughout the year are important...so even with Nadal as the wimby champ Federer's second half of last year would have him far ahead still (in addition to previously described better slam results). Whats your point????

If Nadal had won Wimbledon this year and the FO this year then Nadal would have 2 slams while Fed would only have the AO in 2007. To count the US open from 2006 is just not logical!

I really do not think that tournys throught the year are all that important. I cant say it better than the article:
The majors are well, "majors." They are much more important in tennis than all the other tour events. Their status, prestige, and historical significance makes them stand out. The evolution of the game has centered around the four majors for nearly 100 years. Players prepare and peak for the majors (and not for Acapulco, Bastad, Charleston, Dubai, Estoril, Frankfurt, etc. etc. etc.). The majors should have the ability to deviate from the computer rankings, and not be beholden to the pro tour’s system for assigning points and ratings.

caulcano
08-02-2007, 04:52 AM
I have not questioned Fed sexuality...but now we see your real agenda.

Secondly I did make a typo and will change it. In other words the Hypo is this:

If Nadal won both Wimbledon and the French open in 2007 he would still be the #2 player in the world today.

Don't you see something wrong with that??? Its exacly the same as :

When in 1989 Becker actually did win the US open and Wimbledon while Lendl only one the AO, Lendl still was #1 and Becker was #2.


Don't you see something very wrong with that????

Someone has already pointed out that IF Nadal had won Wimbledon then he would hold 2 GS titles - the exact same number as Federer. In addition Federer's other 2 non-winning GS appearances would be greater than Nadal's other 2 non-winning GS appearances.

However, Nadal would be even further ahead in the race to be year-end #1.

Attila the tennis Bum
08-02-2007, 04:57 AM
That is a completely different question than you asked before. There is not a sane person that would say Roger would be #1 after Nadal won 3 slams in a year. Again, you're using the IF Nadal had won Wimbledon argument. He didn't win, and playing this desperate what if game to try and push your opinion that Nadal should be #1 is sad. Go back to questioning Federer's sexuality and being a troll.

It's posters like you that make me come around here less and less...

Someone has already pointed out that IF Nadal had won Wimbledon then he would hold 2 GS titles - the exact same number as Federer. In addition Federer's other 2 non-winning GS appearances would be greater than Nadal's other 2 non-winning GS appearances.

However, Nadal would be even further ahead in the race to be year-end #1.

And I am saying that it should not be that way. How can you support a system that counts the 2006 US open as a basis for ranking in 2007???

The rankings in 2007 should be only based on performance in 2007 rather than 2006. Therefore in my hypo fed would only have one gs...the AO, while Nadal would have two the FO &Wimby.

Secondly I think its insane that the AO is played in January. It should be played in th summer like all the other grand slams.

onkystomper
08-02-2007, 05:04 AM
And I am saying that it should not be that way. How can you support a system that counts the 2006 US open as a basis for ranking in 2007???

The rankings in 2007 should be only based on performance in 2007 rather than 2006. Therefore in my hypo fed would only have one gs...the AO, while Nadal would have two the FO &Wimby.

Secondly I think its insane that the AO is played in January. It should be played in th summer like all the other grand slams.

So by that you are saying that at the begining of every year everyone should be rated the same. i.e. no points and then you go from there?

That is what the race rankings are about. world rankings count for 1 whole year. It is a good system.

Also what is the point in arguing if Nadal had won wimbledon. He did not.

barry
08-02-2007, 05:13 AM
So by that you are saying that at the begining of every year everyone should be rated the same. i.e. no points and then you go from there?

That is what the race rankings are about. world rankings count for 1 whole year. It is a good system.

Also what is the point in arguing if Nadal had won wimbledon. He did not.

I don't think the current ranking system is any good at all, and does not represent the best tennis players. Why not use a 52 week system based on money earned. The top tournaments pay the most money, so if you win a major event; it is worth a lot more than a U.S. Open series event.

Plus no consideration is given for win quality. Take Roddick for example, he is ranked 5th in the world, but has only 1 top 10 win this year. He is keeping his ranking by playing events where no top 10 players participate.

Golf ranks by money, based on the previous 52 weeks. Why not tennis, and why not seed all 128 in majors by ranking, eliminate the set up draws some players seem to always get.

Attila the tennis Bum
08-02-2007, 05:42 AM
So by that you are saying that at the begining of every year everyone should be rated the same. i.e. no points and then you go from there?

That is what the race rankings are about. world rankings count for 1 whole year. It is a good system.

Also what is the point in arguing if Nadal had won wimbledon. He did not.

yes I am saying that every new year should begin at zero. Hence the term "NEW YEAR". To base rankings on 2006 results is illogical. In fact what other sport does that???

Secondly the point of my hypo was to illustrate how unfair the system is. If Nadal had in fact won Wimbledon and the FO I think at that point he would be the true #1 in everyones minds....but according to the ATP he would only be #2. How is that fair???its the same as what happened in 1989...becker won the USO and Wimbledon and Lendl only won the AO......yet Becker was #2.:confused: . The system makes a bunch of tiny tournaments more important than the grand slams.

In fact I believe another poster on this board started a string that "Fed is giving up the #1 spot".. His point was that Nadal is playing all these clay court tournaments and winning while Fed is doing nothing. Imagine if Nadal started winning a bunch of little tornys while Fed took a break...then Nadal would be #1. Would that be fair?????? Of course not!!! Fed has won Wimby and the AO while Nadal has only won the FO.

The system is based on making the ATP rich. It is incentive based so promoters can make money. If you knew how the ATP was formed you would know that to be true. But thats for another discussion.

Finally the grand slams are not run by the ATP but rather by the ITF. So why on earth should the ATP decide the rankings??? Shouldn't the ITF actually make the rankings as they govern the grand slams?

ninman
08-02-2007, 05:52 AM
The thing is that Federer has been in 3 slam finals (out of three) this year and won two, this is obviously the best record in slams of all players on tour this year, but he is still number 2 in the race and why? Because he didn't win Indian wells and Miami like he normally does and he's also played only 9 tournaments to Nadal's 13. With wins at Indian Wells and Miami Federer would be No.1, and if he defends all of his titles for the rest of year (not including the MC) irrelevant of how Nadal does he will finish the year as No.1.

Currently though, at this point Nadal is having a better year than Federer, he's won more titles and more MS titles, despite not doing as well in GS events. If it was based PURELY on GS and not an overall year performance then Federer would be No.1 right now, and he's still extremely likely to end the year as No.1.

Attila the tennis Bum
08-02-2007, 06:13 AM
Currently though, at this point Nadal is having a better year than Federer, he's won more titles and more MS titles, despite not doing as well in GS events. .

ummmmmm....Nadal has won a gs this year and made it to the finals of another. How can you say he has not done well in gs this year?

caulcano
08-02-2007, 06:21 AM
ummmmmm....Nadal has won a gs this year and made it to the finals of another. How can you say he has not done well in gs this year?

Nadal is not doing as well as Federer in GS this year....

Federer has appeared in 3 GS finals winning 2. Nadal has appeared in 2 GS finals, winning one and a QF appearance.

Attila the tennis Bum
08-02-2007, 06:39 AM
Nadal is not doing as well as Federer in GS this year....

Federer has appeared in 3 GS finals winning 2. Nadal has appeared in 2 GS finals, winning one and a QF appearance.


yes Fed has done better. Thats why Nadal is only the second best grass courter this year. glad you agree.

ninman
08-02-2007, 06:40 AM
yes Fed has done better.

I think you'll find I said he's not done AS well. Obviously 2 finals is doing well by anyones standards.

Attila the tennis Bum
08-02-2007, 06:43 AM
I think you'll find I said he's not done AS well. Obviously 2 finals is doing well by anyones standards.

so whats your point?

ninman
08-02-2007, 06:44 AM
so whats your point?

My point was that GS results alone aren't enough, it's overall year performance, and currently Nadal's is better.

Attila the tennis Bum
08-02-2007, 06:50 AM
My point was that GS results alone aren't enough, it's overall year performance, and currently Nadal's is better.


I disagree. The Grand slams should be more important than anything else. Thats what the article said:


The majors are well, "majors." They are much more important in tennis than all the other tour events. Their status, prestige, and historical significance makes them stand out. The evolution of the game has centered around the four majors for nearly 100 years. Players prepare and peak for the majors (and not for Acapulco, Bastad, Charleston, Dubai, Estoril, Frankfurt, etc. etc. etc.). The majors should have the ability to deviate from the computer rankings, and not be beholden to the pro tour’s system for assigning points and ratings.

ninman
08-02-2007, 06:53 AM
I disagree. The Grand slams should be more important than anything else. Thats what the article said:


The majors are well, "majors." They are much more important in tennis than all the other tour events. Their status, prestige, and historical significance makes them stand out. The evolution of the game has centered around the four majors for nearly 100 years. Players prepare and peak for the majors (and not for Acapulco, Bastad, Charleston, Dubai, Estoril, Frankfurt, etc. etc. etc.). The majors should have the ability to deviate from the computer rankings, and not be beholden to the pro tour’s system for assigning points and ratings.

That's why winning one earns you 200 points, twice as much as a MS. You think they should be worth more?

caulcano
08-02-2007, 06:54 AM
yes Fed has done better. Thats why Nadal is only the second best grass courter this year. glad you agree.

I was pointing out ninman's opinion to you.

Andres
08-02-2007, 08:57 AM
Secondly I think its insane that the AO is played in January. It should be played in th summer like all the other grand slams.
IT IS played in the summer.

In case I wasn't clear, I'll use a bigger font:

IT IS played in the summer

krz
08-02-2007, 09:44 AM
IT IS played in the summer.

In case I wasn't clear, I'll use a bigger font:

IT IS played in the summer


Geography > Attila

pirateofthecarribean
08-02-2007, 09:50 AM
In WTA (I don't follow ATP), GS should be worth more than twice as a Tier I. Tier I gets about 500 points and GS gets only 1000. IMO, GS should be worth 2000 points. And (arguably), Wimbledon should be more than any other GS by 1000 points at 3000 points.

politrix
08-02-2007, 09:54 AM
Attila doesn't understand what Summer actually is, hahaha.

anchorsteamer
08-02-2007, 10:11 AM
[QUOTE=Attila the tennis Bum;1633338]I have not questioned Fed sexuality...but now we see your real agenda.

Secondly I did make a typo and will change it. In other words the Hypo is this:

If Nadal won both Wimbledon and the French open in 2007 he would still be the #2 player in the world today.

Don't you see something wrong with that??? Its exacly the same as :

When in 1989 Becker actually did win the US open and Wimbledon while Lendl only one the AO, Lendl still was #1 and Becker was #2.

Why are you struggling so much with this...its really simple. Becker beat Lendl in the finals of the US Open, giving him an extra slam (2 to 1 with lendl finaling the one). That means Becker had one more victory in slams then Lendl on the year...one. Should the 9 tournaments he won be completely over-looked then? Should those dozens of wins mean nothing? Should one match decide who was best that year or a composite of the full year?

As for the 52 week system...it works. It's the only system that's fair and could work for seeding. There shouldn't be a quality win system either. And stop referencing the stupid article as it means nothing...the seeding should be tweaked at tournies, but what matters is who has been the best over the last year. That's why Sampras's 6 straight years at #1 was so impressive...your system simply wouldnt work.

I'd imagine you'll come back with, "But Becker won 2 slams" or something like that but take a step back and analyze your argument...you want tennis to be about 4 tournaments and thats it. How could that possibly work. And tennis isn't the only sport with the 52 week system...ever watch any golf...they also use the 52 week system and obviousaly play more then just the majors. Your trying to use a system for a seasonal sport like football or basketball for a year round individual sport...doesn't work or make sense..

anchorsteamer
08-02-2007, 10:13 AM
In WTA (I don't follow ATP), GS should be worth more than twice as a Tier I. Tier I gets about 500 points and GS gets only 1000. IMO, GS should be worth 2000 points. And (arguably), Wimbledon should be more than any other GS by 1000 points at 3000 points.

why should Wimbledon be worth more???

BigServer1
08-02-2007, 10:14 AM
I have not questioned Fed sexuality...but now we see your real agenda.

Secondly I did make a typo and will change it. In other words the Hypo is this:

If Nadal won both Wimbledon and the French open in 2007 he would still be the #2 player in the world today.

Don't you see something wrong with that??? Its exacly the same as :

When in 1989 Becker actually did win the US open and Wimbledon while Lendl only one the AO, Lendl still was #1 and Becker was #2.


Don't you see something very wrong with that????

Here is an oppourtunity to learn something. IF and WHEN are two different things. In 1989, Becker deserved the #1 ranking IF Slams were the only basis for ranking. The key point here is that Becker actually won the two slams in question. You have created an argument that is completely based off of a hypothetical that has come and gone and never happened. IF Nadal had won Wimbledon and was ranked #2, you would have a point. The fact is he didn't, so your argument holds no water whatsoever.

You seem to completely misunderstand the ranking system as well. Nadal currently leads Federer in the year end points race, while Federer has the overall lead in the ATP points that determine seedings at tournaments. So you have both the 12 month revolving points (points one must defend) and the start each year at zero points race which determines the year end champion.

Let me pose you a hypothetical question since you love them so much. What if Federer loses early in Canada and Cincy, while Nadal wins both. Then Federer wins the US Open beating Nadal in the Finals. Depending on the TMC, Nadal could finish the year #1 in the points race, even though Federer won 3 slams that year. Would you be screaming on your sad little mountain if that happened? Would that be tragic injustice in your eyes?

I'll rephrase what I said earlier: Why don't you go back to making threads about Fed's "feminine" (your word) image ruining tennis, his man purse, his cologne...oh wait...that sounds like questioning his sexuality.

pirateofthecarribean
08-02-2007, 10:24 AM
why should Wimbledon be worth more???

Because it's the one that everyone wants to win the most.

anchorsteamer
08-02-2007, 10:33 AM
Because it's the one that everyone wants to win the most.

Just a ridiculous comment...wow...

pirateofthecarribean
08-02-2007, 10:35 AM
Just a ridiculous comment...wow...

Remember how Kim Clijsters skipped Roland Garros to prepare for Wimbledon, then changed her mind and got married instead. Shows that Wimbledon is way higher than Roland Garros.

krz
08-02-2007, 10:37 AM
[QUOTE=BigServer1;Would you be screaming on your sad little mountain if that happened? [/QUOTE]

haha sorry that line mad me laugh hard.

anyway I find it funny that Attila is the only one arguing for his point while everybody else seems to disagree and yet he still thinks that we are being illogical.

anchorsteamer
08-02-2007, 10:49 AM
Remember how Kim Clijsters skipped Roland Garros to prepare for Wimbledon, then changed her mind and got married instead. Shows that Wimbledon is way higher than Roland Garros.

Using that logic (which is completely illogical) Wimbledon is less important then the French because several Spaniards have skipped it in the past...

pirateofthecarribean
08-02-2007, 10:54 AM
Using that logic (which is completely illogical) Wimbledon is less important then the French because several Spaniards have skipped it in the past...

Whatever, they are only good on clay anyway. Besides, there is NO way the other 3 "majors" are at the same level as Wimbledon. Wimbledon is the most well-known in the world. Even every layman from Africa knows it. Bet there are few people in the world actually know what Roland Garros is.

GRANITECHIEF
08-02-2007, 11:00 AM
Actually, these days, all the majors are pretty comparable in stature.

pirateofthecarribean
08-02-2007, 11:06 AM
Actually, these days, all the majors are pretty comparable in stature.

Yes, to crazy tennis people who watch tennis everyday, they are. But, to the layman, only Wimbledon is known and hence matters.

anchorsteamer
08-02-2007, 11:07 AM
No...I'd write more but simply puit...NO...thats ridiculous...

anchorsteamer
08-02-2007, 11:09 AM
If anything, Wimbledon should be worth less as it's played on a surface that hardly anyone ever plays on (or if your pro, a surface you only play on a few weeks each year). The system works...no matter if African laymen (????) only know Wimbledon...

GRANITECHIEF
08-02-2007, 11:24 AM
Yes, to crazy tennis people who watch tennis everyday, they are. But, to the layman, only Wimbledon is known and hence matters.

So you think a layman who lives in Australia thinks Wimby is the most important grandslam, or a layman who lives in Paris ...... or a layman who lives in NY.....

You are spouting your unsubstantiated opinion as truth.

stav_babolat
08-02-2007, 11:30 AM
i dont like the fact that you have to defend your points the very next year. look at baghdatis, he reached the final of the australian, and because he didnt repaet that final appearance again, he dropped about 650 ranking points ( plus another 25!) thats terrible, but however,i dont think they should change it as it works for the pros.

krz
08-02-2007, 11:37 AM
Remember how Kim Clijsters skipped Roland Garros to prepare for Wimbledon, then changed her mind and got married instead. Shows that Wimbledon is way higher than Roland Garros.

yea you're about as logical as Attila.

Max G.
08-02-2007, 02:28 PM
i dont like the fact that you have to defend your points the very next year. look at baghdatis, he reached the final of the australian, and because he didnt repaet that final appearance again, he dropped about 650 ranking points ( plus another 25!) thats terrible, but however,i dont think they should change it as it works for the pros.

I don't think there's anything terrible about it.

If you play better at a tournament than you did before, your ranking goes up.
If you play the same as a tournament as you did before, your ranking stays the same.
If you play worse at a tournament than you did before, your ranking drops.

It's pretty simple. Playing better than before makes your ranking go up, playing the same as before lets your ranking stay the same, and playing worse than before makes your ranking go down.

Rhino
08-02-2007, 02:58 PM
If there was a tennis player that was so good that he could win all the 4 slams in a year without playing any warm-up events; and in fact if this player only played those 4 events in the year - the 4 grand slams - and he won them all (lets imagine he didn't mind paying the fines for missing the MS events); he would have a 28-0 match record for the year and probably have beaten the world numbers 1 and 2 several times, but he would only have 4000 points and be ranked world number 3. That would be an example where the rankings would seem a bit inaccurate.
Unlikely to ever happen of course.

anchorsteamer
08-02-2007, 03:11 PM
I'd still disagree...year end ranking is indicative of who was the best that year...all year...week in and week out. If someone only played 4 tournaments, even if they won all 4 they are taking zeros every other week, and as such wouldn't deserve to be ranked higher then someone that perhaps finaled, semi'd and quartered the slams and added 6-8 titles in other tournies. Tennis is a year round sport...the rankings indicate that well.

pow
08-02-2007, 08:48 PM
I can't believe this thread is still going...

Look at the way the system works, you win it, you get points, you keep points until the event is played again in which case, you try to defend points. Simple as that.
Take out a little calculator and total up their points please. Nadal is #2 for a reason, not because Rod Laver or (throw in random person) said so.
I know you really like Nadal and would love it if he was #1 in the world at everything... won all the slams along with the French... but that's just not the case. Federer still edges Nadal with points from mid-year to year-end events.

If Federer and Nadal switched their tournament results with each other, Nadal would be #1, nobody could lie their way around that... but for the time being... Federer is Federer and Nadal is Nadal.
The man is not trying to hold Nadal down... ok?

PLEASE READ ATTILA. OMG

Someone close this thread already? It's so annoying trying to convey a point to someone not speaking with any logic. Federer has US Open points along with other events that Nadal does not have... Nadal barely won anything for the rest of the year last year after reaching the Wimbledon final. Nadal kept his French Open points prior to playing the event and defending it this year, why shouldn't Federer keep his US Open points before it is played again?

pow
08-02-2007, 08:50 PM
If there was a tennis player that was so good that he could win all the 4 slams in a year without playing any warm-up events; and in fact if this player only played those 4 events in the year - the 4 grand slams - and he won them all (lets imagine he didn't mind paying the fines for missing the MS events); he would have a 28-0 match record for the year and probably have beaten the world numbers 1 and 2 several times, but he would only have 4000 points and be ranked world number 3. That would be an example where the rankings would seem a bit inaccurate.
Unlikely to ever happen of course.
That scenario doesn't exist because nobody would want to play all warm-up events and miss all MS events. For what? Fear of greatness?

Rhino
08-02-2007, 10:49 PM
That scenario doesn't exist because nobody would want to play all warm-up events and miss all MS events. For what? Fear of greatness?

I said without playing any warmup events or MS, just the 4 slams. A kind of 'who needs the atp?' player.

Wuornos
08-03-2007, 02:38 AM
I agree with Rhino

I don't think there is anything intrinsically wrong with the way the rankings are calculated with weightings for different events of a rolling horizon time period. In many ways this is the ideal.

However, I do think there is some revision necessary to the parameteres. Greater weighting should be given to the Grand Slam events and the time period should be xtended with perhaps greater weighting given to results in the more recent year.

This would have the effect of creating a system with less volatility. E.g. Players ratings would not decay as quickly due to inactivity. See Atila's point about Venus Williams.

Also there would be less pressure on players to compete in so many tournaments per year which isn't a good thing in my opinion. :)

ninman
08-03-2007, 03:16 AM
I think Macenroe said that the rankings system needs looking at. For one it's your best five tournies outside of GS and MS that count, so someone like Daveydenko plays like 30 tournaments knowing that he'll win at least a couple, and then all those others where we lost in the first round won't count. Whereas someone like Federer basically plays only MS and GS and 4 or 5 and this year 2 or 3 small tournies only.

I think a player who plays fewer tournaments with better quality should be rewarded more than someone who just grinds it out week after week.

tennisjunkiela
08-03-2007, 07:10 AM
Could you imagine if the Yankees won the world series but were not considered the champions because Boston had a better record during the year?:confused: .

interesting point

dukemunson
08-03-2007, 12:54 PM
[QUOTE=Wuornos;1636239] See Atila's point about Venus Williams.
QUOTE]


Atila is not a good person to site as proving a point...really not a good bet...

The point about the Yankees makes no sense as that is a seasonal team sport, and as such has no baring on an individual year round sport. Using your logic Tiger Woods would be the #4 golfer in the world...which of course is ridiculous.

Ninman- Why penalize someone who is out there week in and week out grinding tournament after tournament. He's setting himself up to break down mentally and physically, why go a step further and penalize him with points. The system works...Federer is the deserved #1...Nadal is the deserved #2...Djokovic is the deserved #3 and so on...this isn't NBA officiating...why are we trying to fix a system that works perfectly...

pow
08-04-2007, 11:26 AM
I said without playing any warmup events or MS, just the 4 slams. A kind of 'who needs the atp?' player.

Almost like Mauresmo last year then. haha winning two slams and getting 3rd in rankings at year end.

pow
08-04-2007, 11:29 AM
interesting point

Actually, not that interesting because baseball and tennis are completely different sports, you can't expect to keep track of tennis the way you do baseball.

Same reason why I don't understand why people compare Tiger Woods with Federer... it's two different sports! Let's compare Jordan's record with Federer next huh?

anchorsteamer
08-04-2007, 12:50 PM
It's tough to compare sports but Federer and Woods is a fair comparison (individual year round sport)...

Attila the tennis Bum
08-06-2007, 04:39 PM
Actually, not that interesting because baseball and tennis are completely different sports, you can't expect to keep track of tennis the way you do baseball.

Same reason why I don't understand why people compare Tiger Woods with Federer... it's two different sports! Let's compare Jordan's record with Federer next huh?

How about every single other sport...why is tennis the exception. baseball, hockey , football, basketball are all different sports but none of them have an insane system like we do in tennis.

In fact if you ask me ...clay courts, grass courts, and hard courts are different sports.

anchorsteamer
08-10-2007, 08:46 AM
No one is asking you anything anymore as you cant grasp the difference between individual sport (tennis and golf) and team sport (baseball, hockey). It is obviousaly beyond you...

Attila the tennis Bum
08-10-2007, 09:35 AM
No one is asking you anything anymore as you cant grasp the difference between individual sport (tennis and golf) and team sport (baseball, hockey). It is obviousaly beyond you...

Venus williams won wimbledon and yet she is not even ranked in the top 10. How you find that to be logical is beyond me.

Rpp
08-10-2007, 09:45 AM
Venus williams won wimbledon and yet she is not even ranked in the top 10. How you find that to be logical is beyond me.

Few other players have just collected more points. The ranking cannot be based on few tournaments or voting...the system now is excellent. Or at least better than what are the choices. In tennis they have to put over 1500 players in order. They all cannot play against each other, it is no point to compare the system with baseball.