PDA

View Full Version : Hewitts Ranking


Lleyton Hewitt
08-19-2007, 07:33 AM
Does anyone know what ranking he will end up tomorrow? i think its 16 but im not sure. Does the seed 16 at the us open guarantee u a top 4 player in the 4th round? im sure i read it somewhere on these boards before because hewitt was seeded 16th at wimbledon aswel..

anointedone
08-19-2007, 02:24 PM
I am pretty sure he passes Murray, Ferrero, Baghdatis, and Moya, after this week, so the worst he would be is #16. A #16 seed is sure to draw someone from #1 to #8 in their eighth of the draw at the U.S Open, and if Hewitt won and that guy won to the 4th round, they would play there.

navratilovafan
08-19-2007, 06:05 PM
He made the U.S Open quarters last year, so it will be hard for him to gain points there. Depends on his draw too I guess.

phoony
08-19-2007, 07:00 PM
And facing Fed again :confused:. If yes what a draw he always get unless he is in the other bottom half same group with Nadal.

pj80
08-19-2007, 07:37 PM
yep, hes 16. You know what that means another fed-hewitt matchup in round of 16

OnceWas
08-19-2007, 07:44 PM
Hope he gets a decent draw. Good luck to him.

phoony
08-19-2007, 08:14 PM
No matter what draw he gonna get he has to defeat all those opponents no matter Fed or Nadal in order for him to win win win. With new coach with him he already improving a lot as what we can see in the game between he and Fed at Cincy. Very closed very closed almost killed off Fed.

rhubarb
08-20-2007, 01:11 AM
...Does the seed 16 at the us open guarantee u a top 4 player in the 4th round?...

Yep, one of Federer / Nadal / Djokovic / Davydenko.

Rpp
08-20-2007, 01:38 AM
yep, hes 16. You know what that means another fed-hewitt matchup in round of 16

No it doesn't....there is a draw to decide what section he will be...if he was 17th he could face Fed already on third round so 16th is not bad.

Wuornos
08-20-2007, 02:35 AM
To me this just seems like another example of the official rankings being too volotile. There is no way Lleyton Hewitt should have been down at number 20 last week.

The official ratings are a volume based system which reflect activity as much as the quality of the player.

The ratings should be reflecting only how good the player is. That certainly wasn't the case for Venus Williams going into Wimbledon ranked outside the top 30. That was definitely more of an activity deflator at work.

There's many ways the rankings could be altered to do this, but the ATP seems to have an interest in ensuring players are as active as possible. :(

rhubarb
08-20-2007, 02:54 AM
No it doesn't....there is a draw to decide what section he will be...if he was 17th he could face Fed already on third round so 16th is not bad.

He would have to be in the range of 25 to 32 to play a top eight player in the third round. 17 to 24 play 9 to 16.

lawrence
08-20-2007, 03:41 AM
if hewitt draws fed again thats just.. lol

caulcano
08-20-2007, 05:00 AM
To me this just seems like another example of the official rankings being too volotile. There is no way Lleyton Hewitt should have been down at number 20 last week.

The official ratings are a volume based system which reflect activity as much as the quality of the player.

The ratings should be reflecting only how good the player is. That certainly wasn't the case for Venus Williams going into Wimbledon ranked outside the top 30. That was definitely more of an activity deflator at work.

There's many ways the rankings could be altered to do this, but the ATP seems to have an interest in ensuring players are as active as possible. :(

It wouldn't work.
What happens, if say Linsday Davenport (a quality player) plays at the USOpen, is she entitled to a Top-10 seedings? A lot of the tour players work hard over a season and the rankings are a reflection of this. I'm sure a lot of them would be upset if a 'quality player' returned to near the top of the rankings without any recent success.

superman1
08-20-2007, 07:24 AM
It's amazing we're talking about Hewitt in the top 20. Just a handful of years ago, Hewitt was primed to be the next great player after Sampras and Agassi.

On the bright side, the racquet change seems to have boosted Hewitt's game, and it has taken Federer in the last 2 tournaments to beat him, the second time 7-6 in the third. Hopefully he'll be back in the top 10 pretty soon.

anointedone
08-20-2007, 07:49 AM
It's amazing we're talking about Hewitt in the top 20. Just a handful of years ago, Hewitt was primed to be the next great player after Sampras and Agassi.

I dont think most knowledgeable tennis people felt he was the heir apparent to the greatness of Sampras and Agassi. Few probably would have predicted no more slams after 2002, but nothing about him screamed out "long term dominance" or "perennial #1" when you watched him. That he would be knocked off his perch once more talented or explosive players like Federer, Roddick, Safin, and newcomers matured and came into their own is not particularly surprising. To think watching him he was ever the heir apparent to Sampras, or even Agassi, would have been quite naive.

Wuornos
08-21-2007, 03:25 AM
It wouldn't work.
What happens, if say Linsday Davenport (a quality player) plays at the USOpen, is she entitled to a Top-10 seedings? A lot of the tour players work hard over a season and the rankings are a reflection of this. I'm sure a lot of them would be upset if a 'quality player' returned to near the top of the rankings without any recent success.

Yes I agree they would be upset, but you don't have to think of Davenport and the US Open. We can think of Venus Williams and Wimbledon. She was ranked outside the top 30, but was seeded at 23. Would they have been upset had she been seeded 4? Probably because they are used to the rankings reflecting short term volume data and expect to be rewarded for their work towards that. If the rankings had a different emphasis which was less volume based and they hadn't provided the volume in the current season expecting to be rewarded for it, they would be less disappointed.

Can you see you are justifying the current system because players expects to be rewarded according to the current system. I think it's a bit of a circular argument.

Wuornos
08-21-2007, 03:31 AM
It wouldn't work.
What happens, if say Linsday Davenport (a quality player) plays at the USOpen, is she entitled to a Top-10 seedings? A lot of the tour players work hard over a season and the rankings are a reflection of this. I'm sure a lot of them would be upset if a 'quality player' returned to near the top of the rankings without any recent success.

Sorry reading your post again I think I can now see what you're driving at. I am not condoning a nil decay due to inactivity. Just a slower decay than that which currently exists. To drop almost 30 places due to 6 months inactivity means the rankings aren't reflecting actual playing standard. To drop 4 or 5, OK.

Rpp
08-21-2007, 09:46 AM
Sorry reading your post again I think I can now see what you're driving at. I am not condoning a nil decay due to inactivity. Just a slower decay than that which currently exists. To drop almost 30 places due to 6 months inactivity means the rankings aren't reflecting actual playing standard. To drop 4 or 5, OK.

This would mean that there are less tournaments counted for the ranking. And then it would be impossible to get some top players to play on tour without huge appearance fees. So quality of tournaments would go down...and the biggest losers were the tennis fans...do you really want this? Let's stick with the current ranking system as there is no big problems there.

diggler
08-21-2007, 07:43 PM
Hopefully he can drag himself up to top 8 so he won't meet anyone big until at least the quarters.

Dan007
08-21-2007, 09:01 PM
Better if he faces Daveydenko

Hewitt Aussie
08-21-2007, 09:28 PM
guys, he can own davydenko. he beat him not long ago in straight sets. He has also shown that he can compete with Federer and Nadal, and maybe get a bit lucky and win. He has Roddicks number also. He has the revenge factor going for him against djokovic, and he really wants to beat him.

Wuornos
08-22-2007, 03:18 AM
This would mean that there are less tournaments counted for the ranking. And then it would be impossible to get some top players to play on tour without huge appearance fees. So quality of tournaments would go down...and the biggest losers were the tennis fans...do you really want this? Let's stick with the current ranking system as there is no big problems there.

Yes RPP. i agree with you absolutley. That is what would happen and I agree it may not be in the fans interest and from that point of view I think you are correct the current system serves the fans interests very well.

However, i do wish sometimes that fans understood, as you do, the current ranking system is as much about encouraging activity as it is about measuring playing standard. To listen to some fans they seem to think the official rankings are the be all and end all of playing standard and are 100%representative of player quality rather than activity.

Thanks you so much for your post, it's great to hear that someone understands what I am talking about and cares enough to provide valid criticism. :D