PDA

View Full Version : 'cruel' rankings system


sheq
05-13-2009, 03:48 PM
ı think they are right in a way but on the other hand it is a great system bringing much more excitement to tennis..

http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/13052009/3/djokovic-blasts-cruel-rankings-system.html

http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/13052009/58/nadal-djokovic-slam-rankings.html

what are your thoughts ?

cucio
05-13-2009, 04:11 PM
Defending a title should grant more points than winning it for the first time? Interesting idea, it has some merit. It would be an objective way to recognize how difficult is to be dominant. On the other hand, it could create stagnation, newcomers would take very long to climb the rankings.

gj011
05-13-2009, 04:26 PM
I must say I disagree with Djokovic and Nadal here. Novak has been better than Murray this last month but not in previous months, and that is what rankings measure and what is often forgotten. It might be cruel, but it is the way it is, and I think the system is fine (last year it was actually better, so the change has been for the worse, but it is not a big change).

If Novak beat Murray in Miami final he would still be #3. It is as simple as that. What applies to Serena applies to Novak as well, although he just said the system is cruel, not that he is "the real #3" :)

icedevil0289
05-13-2009, 04:33 PM
I must say I disagree with Djokovic and Nadal here. Novak has been better than Murray this last months but not in previous months, and that is what rankings measure and what is often forgotten. It might be cruel, but it is the way it is, and I think the system is fine (last year it was actually better, so the change has been for the worse, but it is not a big change).

If Novak beat Murray in Miami final he would still be #3. It is as simple as that. What applies to Serena applies to Novak as well, although he just said the system is cruel, not that he is "the real #3" :)

I agree with you as well. Btw, what would nole have to do to get back his no. 3 ranking?

egn
05-13-2009, 04:49 PM
It would be tough to implement but Novak is right the rankings are a little iffy as it has been. However a two year ranking system could have resulted in an exteneded fifth year of Fed reign They would need to really work hard I mean didn't the 70s and 80s have multi year systems and there were years the number 1 players were clearly not the best player on the tour. (Connors 77, McEnroe 82) I agree with Djokovic though. Murray is able to overtake him in a tournament where Djokovic went to the finals and Murray got a 3rd round loss..it is the way the cookie crumbles. The system has its issues but so far it is the best one they have had in a while.

tacou
05-13-2009, 05:57 PM
2yr ranking system probably wouldn't work. it seems more unfair if you have a good year and then a crappy one, but your ranking reflects a year ago when you were playing better.

in January you basically go into the season with all the points you accumulated the previous season. if you don't play as well you will slowly lose those points. seems fair to me.

It does suck for Djokovic but he won Rome last year and didn't this year. cruel but reality.

seffina
05-13-2009, 06:26 PM
I have no idea what either Nadal or Djokovic are talking about. I think the 52 weeks system works excellently. I do wish they hadn't decreased the points for reaching a final or a semi. I think that's hurting Djokovic more than anything. He's not getting as many points for going so far. He would have at least 300 more points based on last year's point distribution.

ice, if Djokovic wins, he's back to number three even if Murray's the finalist he faces. If Djokovic makes the final (and doesn't win) and Murray loses in the quarters, Djokovic is number three.

icedevil0289
05-13-2009, 06:28 PM
I have no idea what either Nadal or Djokovic are talking about. I think the 52 weeks system works excellently. I do wish they hadn't decreased the points for reaching a final or a semi. I think that's hurting Djokovic more than anything. He's not getting as many points for going so far. He would have at least 300 more points based on last year's point distribution.

ice, if Djokovic wins, he's back to number three even if Murray's the finalist he faces. If Djokovic makes the final (and doesn't win) and Murray loses in the quarters, Djokovic is number three.

thank you!

West Coast Ace
05-13-2009, 06:28 PM
I think the system is fine. Rewards continued excellence; punishes flashes in the pan; allows up and comers to make big jumps - but not too big - e.g. Steve Darcis didn't go to the top 10 after winning a few tournaments; 'strongly encourages' players to keep playing tournaments and not just show up at the majors and 1000 series; has built in ranking protection for legit injuries.

Cruel because someone dropped 1 spot because he didn't defend? Where's the problem? If he fell to 9 then I'd be onboard with a redo of the system.

Ain't broke, don't fix it.

seffina
05-13-2009, 06:33 PM
I think the system is fine. Rewards continued excellence; punishes flashes in the pan; allows up and comers to make big jumps - but not too big - e.g. Steve Darcis didn't go to the top 10 after winning a few tournaments; 'strongly encourages' players to keep playing tournaments and not just show up at the majors and 1000 series; has built in ranking protection for legit injuries.

Cruel because someone dropped 1 spot because he didn't defend? Where's the problem? If he fell to 9 then I'd be onboard with a redo of the system.

Ain't broke, don't fix it.
I do think they should make one of the Masters Series optional, not just Monte Carlo. So if say Nadal wants to skip a hard court one, he can. Roddick wants to skip a clay court one, he can.

And I don't think the new points distribution is working out that well. The finals and semis points seem a little low to me.

But otherwise, I don't think Djokovic has anything to complain about. He won four titles last year. So far this year, he hasn't defended any. He lost at the AO, IW, and Rome. The good news for him is that after Queens, Murray's the one who'll be doing some defending while he'll have opportunities to gain back points.

West Coast Ace
05-13-2009, 06:44 PM
I do think they should make one of the Masters Series optional, not just Monte Carlo. So if say Nadal wants to skip a hard court one, he can. Roddick wants to skip a clay court one, he can.If you were the tournament director in Rome or Cincy, the two most likely suspects to get bagged by the top names, I doubt you'd have that opinion. The tour is star driven - these people pay a lot for the right to hold a big tournament - can't have the ATP handing out 'get out of jail free' passes because of a computer ranking.

But the rest of your post is sound. Joker will get his chances to move up - up to him whether he does or doesn't.

Joseph L. Barrow
05-13-2009, 07:03 PM
On a two-year ranking system, Federer would still have points from mid-2007. I think it's fair to say that what he was doing then has very little reflection on his current form. A two-year system would also seriously slow down young guns trying to rise to the top- guys like Murray and Del Potro who made sudden, dramatic improvements in form after playing well below an elite level would have to maintain top 5 performance for an extremely long time before they could overtake guys who were ahead of them essentially just by merit of being older.

raiden031
05-13-2009, 07:11 PM
I actually disagree with Nadal on extending the point system to 2 years. Then you end up with players who haven't done crap for a year still at a high ranking or vice versa. I think the rankings should be very volatile to reasonably reflect the current strength of the players.

I think it would be more exciting if they removed points (although partially) from an event more frequently than just once a year. That would mean that the latest rankings are weighed more heavily on the most recent events played. That way if a player is hot, they will climb the rankings and if they are cold, they will drop in the rankings.

For instance, if a player plays an event that is worth 1000 points, lets say that every 3 months they will lose 250 from that event. So initially its worth 1000, then 750 after 3 months, 500 after 6 months, 250 after 9 months, and then 0 by the end of the year unless they defend the title and win the 1000 again the next year.

TheNatural
05-14-2009, 12:34 PM
a 2 year system would be a bad idea. we'd have to put up with mono excuses for an extra year.:lol:

fps
05-14-2009, 12:40 PM
I actually disagree with Nadal on extending the point system to 2 years. Then you end up with players who haven't done crap for a year still at a high ranking or vice versa. I think the rankings should be very volatile to reasonably reflect the current strength of the players.

I think it would be more exciting if they removed points (although partially) from an event more frequently than just once a year. That would mean that the latest rankings are weighed more heavily on the most recent events played. That way if a player is hot, they will climb the rankings and if they are cold, they will drop in the rankings.

For instance, if a player plays an event that is worth 1000 points, lets say that every 3 months they will lose 250 from that event. So initially its worth 1000, then 750 after 3 months, 500 after 6 months, 250 after 9 months, and then 0 by the end of the year unless they defend the title and win the 1000 again the next year.

i disagree too. this system will not be seen as a good idea by anyone except those who wish to see players entrenched at the top of the game beyond their time. It builds in an advantage to the haves and takes away from the guys who are just making their way in the game, and those who produce the performance of a lifetime in a tourny and are rightly rewarded for it.

The-Champ
05-14-2009, 12:43 PM
Murray Defends Rankings System


New world number three Andy Murray hit back at number four Novak Djokovic on Thursday after the Serb said the current rankings system was cruel. Djokovic was leapfrogged by Murray in the rankings on Monday despite landing a second title of the year in Belgrade at the weekend and reaching the last three Masters Series finals. "There always seem to be problems and now it's obviously the rankings," Murray told a news conference after beating Tommy Robredo in the third round of the Madrid Open. It's great that Novak's done well the last few weeks but the first three or four months of the year I played a lot better than him so I think the rankings reflect very well how the guys are playing. Until this week I've never heard anyone complain. I think maybe only in the last week it's become a problem for Novak." Players on the ATP tour have to defend the points they earned during the same week a year earlier, so the reigning champion at an event can only maintain his points tally, not improve it. "Playing three Masters Series finals in a row and winning a 250 event is incredible success and even then you are dropping a spot down in the rankings," Djokovic said on Wednesday. "That shows how cruel the ranking system is in this sport."

Reuters

WOW, can't wait to see Murray give the Djoke some beatings he will never forget.

TheNatural
05-14-2009, 12:59 PM
maybe there could be some extra bonus points for special things like 'defending a title' .

Dutch-Guy
05-14-2009, 01:19 PM
The ranking system is just fine the way it's time.A 2 year system 'd allow mugs like Simon to stay in top 10 for 24 months.Ridiculous.

sheq
05-14-2009, 02:09 PM
WOW, can't wait to see Murray give the Djoke some beatings he will never forget.

wow it is getting heated between these two.. :))

Dutch-Guy
05-14-2009, 02:33 PM
edit:double post.

Max G.
05-14-2009, 10:27 PM
I think it would be more exciting if they removed points (although partially) from an event more frequently than just once a year. That would mean that the latest rankings are weighed more heavily on the most recent events played. That way if a player is hot, they will climb the rankings and if they are cold, they will drop in the rankings.

For instance, if a player plays an event that is worth 1000 points, lets say that every 3 months they will lose 250 from that event. So initially its worth 1000, then 750 after 3 months, 500 after 6 months, 250 after 9 months, and then 0 by the end of the year unless they defend the title and win the 1000 again the next year.

The problem with that is surface changes.

Suppose you have someone who plays at the same level all year round -say he's a hardcourt specialist, so he has a good few months in the beginning of the year, then does nothing on clay and grass, then has another good few months.

Now, he's constantly playing at the same level. However, with your ranking system, his ranking would fluctuate a lot - even though he's playing at the same level all the time!

Heck, this would result in lots of horrible seedings. Right before the start of the claycourt season, all the top claycourters would have really low rankings and be unseeded and might play each other early. Sure, it's exciting - but it would put in SO much more luck of the draw!

No, a one-year system is the right amount. It covers every surface and season equally, and is the shortest possible time interval that does that.

robin7
05-15-2009, 03:58 AM
I'm okay with 52-week ranking system but find it a bit biased in new ranking points.

Compared to the old ranking points, the new ranking points are is more advantageous the winners.

raiden031
05-15-2009, 04:03 AM
The problem with that is surface changes.

Suppose you have someone who plays at the same level all year round -say he's a hardcourt specialist, so he has a good few months in the beginning of the year, then does nothing on clay and grass, then has another good few months.

Now, he's constantly playing at the same level. However, with your ranking system, his ranking would fluctuate a lot - even though he's playing at the same level all the time!

Heck, this would result in lots of horrible seedings. Right before the start of the claycourt season, all the top claycourters would have really low rankings and be unseeded and might play each other early. Sure, it's exciting - but it would put in SO much more luck of the draw!

No, a one-year system is the right amount. It covers every surface and season equally, and is the shortest possible time interval that does that.

Good call, I didn't consider the surfaces.