PDA

View Full Version : If Murray wins Wimbledon...


maximo
06-19-2009, 10:56 AM
He will become #1 in the world on July 20 once his Indianopolis penalty expires!!

When this happens, the tennis world will admire the true brilliance of Andy Murray.

NamRanger
06-19-2009, 10:57 AM
That's a big if. You try having the weight of a nation on your shoulders, in the most prestigious tennis tournament in the history of the sport. It will be no easy feat, especially since most likely he will have to go through alot of tough opponents (Safin, Roddick, Federer) to win it.

batz
06-19-2009, 10:59 AM
He will become #1 in the world on July 20 once his Indianopolis penalty expires!!

When this happens, the tennis world will admire the true brilliance of Andy Murray.

OK Max. I'm only going to ask once and if you ignore me then fair enough mate. But please cool your jets buddy. I love your 100% support of Andy but you're doing my bonce in.

Thanks.

PS good stat

Dutch-Guy
06-19-2009, 11:00 AM
He will become #1 in the world on July 20 once his Indianopolis penalty expires!!

When this happens, the tennis world will admire the true brilliance of Andy Murray.

Almost.
Murray has 9230
Rafa has 12735

Rafa loses 2000 points now so he goes down to 10735.
Murray 'd gain 1500 and end up with 10730.

Difference between them: 5 points.

batz
06-19-2009, 11:01 AM
Almost.
Murray has 9230
Rafa has 12735

Rafa loses 2000 points now so he goes down to 10735.
Murray 'd gain 1500 and end up with 10730.

Difference between them: 5 points.


Max said when Murray's zero pointer fell off Dutch Guy - that thappens just after wimby.

Claudius
06-19-2009, 11:01 AM
He's not gonna win. He chokes in slams.

malakas
06-19-2009, 11:01 AM
OK Max. I'm only going to ask once and if you ignore me then fair enough mate. But please cool your jets buddy. I love your 100% support of Andy but you're doing my bonce in.

Thanks.

PS good stat

what he said.

All-rounder
06-19-2009, 11:02 AM
All this will do is add more pressure to Murray now that he has a cakewalk draw to the finals

vtmike
06-19-2009, 11:04 AM
He will become #1 in the world on July 20 once his Indianopolis penalty expires!!

When this happens, the tennis world will admire the true brilliance of Andy Murray.

Its a sad day for tennis! Not the right time to crack jokes... :(

Dutch-Guy
06-19-2009, 11:04 AM
Max said when Murray's zero pointer fell off Dutch Guy - that thappens just after wimby.

Ok.we'll see...

Muzzafan
06-19-2009, 11:04 AM
I think murray will handle it, but everyones free to speculate.

IvanAndreevich
06-19-2009, 11:05 AM
I sure hope that if he wins he will have to do it by beating Fed in the final.

batz
06-19-2009, 11:05 AM
A lot is made of the pressure on Murray, I'm not sure that'll be his biggest problem. I think a hot big hitter (and there are a few of them in his draw) is more of a threat than the pressure. Just my opinion - can't prove it or anything, but I think Murray will thrive on it.

cknobman
06-19-2009, 11:07 AM
Murray is gonna loose to roddick in the semis.

You heard it here first!!!!

batz
06-19-2009, 11:10 AM
Murray is gonna loose to roddick in the semis.

You heard it here first!!!!

IF Murray makes semis then I'll be delighted to see him face ARod. I suspect he would feel much the same.

malakas
06-19-2009, 11:12 AM
From Duong mtf:

As a summary :

Federer or Murray can be number 1 in july if they win Wimbledon
... but Murray would have to wait until the 20th of july or the 27th of july to be number 1

... and Murray would lose his number 1 one week later, except if both Federer and Nadal had a complete failure in Wimbledon (Fed not in the semifinal, Nadal not in the quarterfinal).
If Fed or Nadal reaches the semifinal in Wimbledon, the one of them who will have the best result in Wimbledon will be number 1 on the 3rd of august (if they both lose in the semifinal Nadal will be number 1).
Apart from Nadal, only Federer can be number 1 on the day after Wimbledon :

for that he has to win Wimbledon and hope that Nadal doesn't reach the semifinal

Then on the 20th of july Murray will get his points from the Queens at last, as he will lose his zero-penalty for not taking part in Indianapolis last year (Murray ==> 8730 + 250 = 8980 points):

then on the 20th of july it's possible that Murray is number 1 : he has to win Wimbledon, and Nadal should not reach the quarterfinals.

Then on the 27th of july the points in Toronto last year will fall down : so far it would be :

Nadal 9735 (=10735-1000 ... + Wimbledon+Davis Cup)
Federer 9210 (=9220-10 ... + Wimbledon)
Murray 8530 (=8980-450 ... + Wimbledon)
Djokovic 7630 (=7790-250+90 ... + Wimbledon)

Then if Federer or Murray wins Wimbledon, he's likely to be number one on the 27th of july.
to keep his number 1 on the 3rd of august, Murray would have to hope that both Nadal and Federer had a big failure in Wimbledon (Nadal shouldn't reach the quarterfinals, and even lose before the R16 if he wins one match in the Davis Cup, and Federer shouldn't reach the semifinal).
If Fed or Nadal reaches the semifinal in Wimbledon, the one of them who will have the best result in Wimbledon will be number 1 on the 3rd of august
Next event would be Montreal (olympic games last year falling down).

All-rounder
06-19-2009, 11:12 AM
I think this situation is the same as the FO but this time the main focus is on Murray to get his first slam there is still some small pressure on federer to get his 15th but I know that either win or lose federer will have more chances to break the record

malakas
06-19-2009, 11:13 AM
it's a little complicated :confused:

Lotto
06-19-2009, 11:14 AM
He will become #1 in the world on July 20 once his Indianopolis penalty expires!!

When this happens, the tennis world will admire the true brilliance of Andy Murray.

No,

WHEN Federer wins Wimbledon, the tennis world will bow to its true king and the GOAT. Including you.......

Clydey2times
06-19-2009, 11:15 AM
From Duong mtf:

As a summary :

Federer or Murray can be number 1 in july if they win Wimbledon
... but Murray would have to wait until the 20th of july or the 27th of july to be number 1

... and Murray would lose his number 1 one week later, except if both Federer and Nadal had a complete failure in Wimbledon (Fed not in the semifinal, Nadal not in the quarterfinal).
If Fed or Nadal reaches the semifinal in Wimbledon, the one of them who will have the best result in Wimbledon will be number 1 on the 3rd of august (if they both lose in the semifinal Nadal will be number 1).
Apart from Nadal, only Federer can be number 1 on the day after Wimbledon :

for that he has to win Wimbledon and hope that Nadal doesn't reach the semifinal

Then on the 20th of july Murray will get his points from the Queens at last, as he will lose his zero-penalty for not taking part in Indianapolis last year (Murray ==> 8730 + 250 = 8980 points):

then on the 20th of july it's possible that Murray is number 1 : he has to win Wimbledon, and Nadal should not reach the quarterfinals.

Then on the 27th of july the points in Toronto last year will fall down : so far it would be :

Nadal 9735 (=10735-1000 ... + Wimbledon+Davis Cup)
Federer 9210 (=9220-10 ... + Wimbledon)
Murray 8530 (=8980-450 ... + Wimbledon)
Djokovic 7630 (=7790-250+90 ... + Wimbledon)

Then if Federer or Murray wins Wimbledon, he's likely to be number one on the 27th of july.
to keep his number 1 on the 3rd of august, Murray would have to hope that both Nadal and Federer had a big failure in Wimbledon (Nadal shouldn't reach the quarterfinals, and even lose before the R16 if he wins one match in the Davis Cup, and Federer shouldn't reach the semifinal).
If Fed or Nadal reaches the semifinal in Wimbledon, the one of them who will have the best result in Wimbledon will be number 1 on the 3rd of august
Next event would be Montreal (olympic games last year falling down).

What guarantees Fed number 1 in August if Murray beats him in the final?

malakas
06-19-2009, 11:16 AM
here's the update AFTER nadal's withdrawal:
From duong mtf:
As a summary :

If Federer wins Wimbledon, he will be number 1 on the day after Wimbledon.
Else Nadal will still be number 1 at that moment.

If Murray wins Wimbledon, he will be number 1 on the 20th of july
... but if Federer reaches the semifinal, Murray will lose his number 1 to Federer on the 3rd of august.
If Federer reaches the semifinal and Murray doesn't win Wimbledon, Federer will be number 1 on the 27th of july.
If Federer reaches the quarterfinal and Murray doesn't win Wimbledon, Federer will be number 1 on the 3rd of August.
The only way for Nadal to keep his number 1 until at least the 17th of august would be that Federer loses before the quarterfinal and Murray doesn't win Wimbledon. But even in that case, he would have to reach at least the final in Montreal to keep his number 1 on the 24th of august as he will lose his 800 points from the olympic games (Federer will lose 200 points from the olympics)

Djokovic cannot be number 1 before Montreal anyway



Here are some precisions and detailed calculations :

For the 6th of july right after Wimbledon the points so far (taking out last year's Wimbledon) are :

Nadal 10735
Federer 9220
Murray 8730
Djokovic 7790

Then it's impossible for Murray (or Djokovic) to be number 1 right after Wimbledon

Then on the 20th of july Murray will get his points from the Queens at last, as he will lose his zero-penalty for not taking part in Indianapolis last year (Murray ==> 8730 + 250 = 8980 points):

then if he wins Wimbledon, Murray will be number 1 on the 20th of july

Then on the 27th of july the points in Toronto last year will fall down : so far it would be :

Nadal 9735 (=10735-1000 ... +Davis Cup ?)
Federer 9210 (=9220-10 ... + Wimbledon)
Murray 8530 (=8980-450 ... + Wimbledon)
Djokovic 7630 (=7790-250+90 ... + Wimbledon)

Then on the 3rd of august the points in Cincinnatti last year will fall down : so far it would be :

Nadal 9285 (=10735-1000-450 ... +Davis Cup?)
Federer 9060 (=9220-10-150 ... + Wimbledon)
Murray 7530 (=8980-450-1000 ... + Wimbledon)
Djokovic 7020 (=7790-250-700+90+90... + Wimbledon)

At this moment both Federer and Murray could be number 1, Djokovic still couldn't,

but

to keep his number 1 on the 3rd of august, Murray would have to hope that Federer didn't reach the semifinal in Wimbledon

Next event would be Montreal (olympic games last year falling down).

ksbh
06-19-2009, 11:18 AM
With the King out of Wimbledon, Federer & Murray have a great chance to win it. If Murray takes it, I will pop a bottle of champagne, though alcoholic drinks aren't a favorite of mine! :)

He will become #1 in the world on July 20 once his Indianopolis penalty expires!!

When this happens, the tennis world will admire the true brilliance of Andy Murray.

T1000
06-19-2009, 11:19 AM
Murray has, in the words of sampras and nadal fans, a cakewalk draw to the semis

tudwell
06-19-2009, 11:20 AM
If Murray wins Wimbledon, it won't count because he won't have played Nadal.

Muzzafan
06-19-2009, 11:21 AM
I hope murray doesn't screw this up, he has an awesome chance of making the semi's/final.

malakas
06-19-2009, 11:22 AM
What guarantees Fed number 1 in August if Murray beats him in the final?

Cincinatti points fall,

Clydey2times
06-19-2009, 11:28 AM
Cincinatti points fall,

They drop before the tournament is played because there's no Olympics this year?

malakas
06-19-2009, 11:31 AM
They drop before the tournament is played because there's no Olympics this year?

I don't know exactly,but this year is very confusing with points..you're a member in mtf,go ask duong!:p

All-rounder
06-19-2009, 11:32 AM
Murray has, in the words of sampras and nadal fans, a cakewalk draw to the semis
You mean finals now that rafa pulled out

Mick
06-19-2009, 11:36 AM
if murray wins wimbledon, the english people will crown him king for a day :)

tudwell
06-19-2009, 11:37 AM
You mean finals now that rafa pulled out

Nah, Roddick will take him out in the semis.

maximo
06-19-2009, 11:38 AM
Nah, Roddick will take him out in the semis.

LOL, some people speak such rubbish...

batz
06-19-2009, 11:39 AM
if murray wins wimbledon, the english people will crown him king for a day :)


I think the rest of the Brits might be quite pleased as well mate ;)

All-rounder
06-19-2009, 11:40 AM
Nah, Roddick will take him out in the semis.
You think I don't know he stands a good chance

Muzzafan
06-19-2009, 11:42 AM
[QUOTE=Mick;3577448]if murray wins wimbledon, the english people will crown him king for a day :)[/QUOTE

Yeah, I bet they'll parade him around in a london bus and I'd also imagine he'd profit from it very nicely aswell with the publicity in the UK he'd bring.

malakas
06-19-2009, 11:42 AM
LOL, some people speak such rubbish...

ha!Indeed maximo indeed....

Muzzafan
06-19-2009, 11:44 AM
LOL, some people speak such rubbish...

Realistically roddick could beat him, but the favourite would be murray.

Mick
06-19-2009, 11:48 AM
to beat federer at this point in time, roddick probably would need to get a black magic federer voodoo doll or something :)

All-rounder
06-19-2009, 11:56 AM
to beat federer at this point in time, roddick probably would need to get a black magic federer voodoo doll or something :)
Or travel back in time to 2004 and find his forehand

vtmike
06-19-2009, 11:56 AM
LOL, some people speak such rubbish...

That would be you!.....you nincompoop!

Cesc Fabregas
06-19-2009, 11:58 AM
Well if Andy Murray doesn't reach the final now he will be kicking himself.

maximo
06-19-2009, 12:02 PM
Well if Andy Murray doesn't reach the final now he will be kicking himself.

If he doesn't win he will be kicking himself...

ChanceEncounter
06-19-2009, 12:03 PM
Or travel back in time to 2004 and find his forehand
Best still get that voodoo doll.

yellowoctopus
06-19-2009, 12:03 PM
If Murray wins Wimbledon....

http://www.opednews.com/populum/uploaded/flyingpig-2795-20090429-370.gif

All-rounder
06-19-2009, 01:01 PM
If he doesn't win he will be kicking himself...
I think your asking for too much here if this were hardcourt then yes Murray may be kicking himself if he didn't make it to the final in this kind of situation

jimbo333
06-19-2009, 04:36 PM
He's not gonna win. He chokes in slams.

Your mixing him up with the other one mate!!!

It's not Henman:)

gj011
06-19-2009, 04:38 PM
I would rather have Murray at #1 than Federer.

IvanAndreevich
06-19-2009, 04:39 PM
^ Do you think anyone doubted that?

Of course, Federer is a pathetic #1.

jimbo333
06-19-2009, 04:39 PM
A lot is made of the pressure on Murray, I'm not sure that'll be his biggest problem. I think a hot big hitter (and there are a few of them in his draw) is more of a threat than the pressure. Just my opinion - can't prove it or anything, but I think Murray will thrive on it.

Yeah I agree:)

Murray does thrive under pressure, but could easily face Gonzalez in Quarters and I saw Gonzo on grass this week and he looked in great touch on the grass. Beat Tsonga hitting great topspin BH as well as that mighty FH, and his serve looked awesome!!!

jimbo333
06-19-2009, 04:46 PM
if murray wins wimbledon, the english people will crown him king for a day :)

Yes, the English consider him British, although if he was English rather than Scottish they would consider him English, but I'm half Welsh so don't care either way, I'll be celebrating if he wins:)

OTMPut
06-19-2009, 04:47 PM
I would rather have Murray at #1 than Federer.

Wow, who gives a rat's ***** about your #1 preferences?

kimbahpnam
06-19-2009, 04:49 PM
What's the INDY penalty?

slicefox
06-19-2009, 04:54 PM
i will try to jinx this one

Katlion
06-19-2009, 04:56 PM
Somehow I doubt this will happen, as Roger has gained a world of confidence from the win at the French, and he still is the undefined King of Grass.

Katlion
06-19-2009, 04:57 PM
^ Do you think anyone doubted that?

Of course, Federer is a pathetic #1.
Can I ask why you say this ^^? Have you found a better number one? Does anyone else have 14 slams, including at least one of all four? I don't think so. So until that happens, please don't insult one of the greatest players of all time.

Gugafan
06-19-2009, 05:55 PM
Yeah I agree:)

Murray does thrive under pressure, but could easily face Gonzalez in Quarters and I saw Gonzo on grass this week and he looked in great touch on the grass. Beat Tsonga hitting great topspin BH as well as that mighty FH, and his serve looked awesome!!!

Thats the one match that worries me. Gonzo is the kind of player that revels infront of the noisy crowds as the underdog. That being said, Murray has that positive body language that can really encourage the crowd to influence a match, as proven against Gasquet at Wimbledon last year. Who knows we may even see the return of the clenched bicep Lol.

JeMar
06-19-2009, 06:40 PM
I will revive this when Andy Murray loses before the semifinals.

JeMar
06-19-2009, 06:41 PM
Well if Andy Murray doesn't reach the final now he will be kicking himself.

I wouldn't worry about that. He'll have a whole country lending their foot for help.

TheTruth
06-19-2009, 06:51 PM
Go Murray. It would be nice to see him win his first grand slam. I hope him or Djokovic wins. That would be great for tennis.

Tennis_Bum
06-19-2009, 11:02 PM
He will become #1 in the world on July 20 once his Indianopolis penalty expires!!

When this happens, the tennis world will admire the true brilliance of Andy Murray.

I guess that would be cool for you and the folks in Great Britain. If that's the case, then I am okay with that but he has to play his A game to win it. Let's see if he can do that for 2 weeks.

BreakPoint
06-20-2009, 12:54 AM
He will become #1 in the world on July 20 once his Indianopolis penalty expires!!

When this happens, the tennis world will admire the true brilliance of Andy Murray.
Something must be wrong with the point ranking system then because Murray would have only won one Slam in the last four and he went out early at both the AO and the FO. Hmmm.....

Cesc Fabregas
06-20-2009, 12:57 AM
I have a sneaky feeling Djokovic is gonna win Wimbledon.

zagor
06-20-2009, 01:00 AM
I have a sneaky feeling Djokovic is gonna win Wimbledon.

Well you never know,you might turn right.Aside from Fed I'm also rooting for Novak and Tsonga at Wimbledon this year so it would be great if Novak won,he'd get an amazing reception in my country.

batz
06-20-2009, 01:20 AM
Something must be wrong with the point ranking system then because Murray would have only won one Slam in the last four and he went out early at both the AO and the FO. Hmmm.....

"Something wrong with the points system" LOL Yeah, becasue only slams count for ranking purposes - oh wait. They don't.

Did you purposefully omit the USO final from this and your 'last four' reference? And since when was going out in your fifth match of a slam 'early'?

What you'd really be asking is :

"How could a guy who in the last 12 months has won 1 slam, been to the final of another and made QF in another, and who's won 3 MS shields and been to another MS final and won a further 4 tournaments, possibly be number 1"

jamesblakefan#1
06-20-2009, 01:23 AM
lol at the QF of a slam being "early'' these days...

maximo
06-20-2009, 01:24 AM
Hell no is Murray a pusher.

BreakPoint
06-20-2009, 10:24 AM
"
Did you purposefully omit the USO final from this and your 'last four' reference? And since when was going out in your fifth match of a slam 'early'?

No, of course not. The USO is one of the last 4 GS's, and the last I checked, Murray didn't win that one either. He lost in the final.

And, yes, Murray DID go out early at both the AO and the FO because he didn't make the semis of either. As the #4 and #3 seed, you are expected to make the semis. Anything earlier than that means you went out earlier than you were supposed to.

NamRanger
06-20-2009, 10:26 AM
Your mixing him up with the other one mate!!!

It's not Henman:)



So you're saying he didn't choke against Verdasco? I doubt it.

batz
06-20-2009, 10:27 AM
No, of course not. The USO is one of the last 4 GS's, and the last I checked, Murray didn't win that one either. He lost in the final.

And, yes, Murray DID go out early at both the AO and the FO because he didn't make the semis of either. As the #4 and #3 seed, you are expected to make the semis. Anything earlier than that means you went out earlier than you were supposed to.

OK - so you meant he didn't play to his seeding at AO and RG Fair enough. I still don't get your something wrong with the ranking system comment though.

batz
06-20-2009, 10:30 AM
So you're saying he didn't choke against Verdasco? I doubt it.

Right - so it was the pressure on Murray to perform that cost him that match? Nothing to do with

a- Verdasco's brilliance

or

b - the virus that Murray had for days before the match and that stopped him from flying home for 3 days after it

or

c - a combination of both

NamRanger
06-20-2009, 10:33 AM
Right - so it was the pressure on Murray to perform that cost him that match? Nothing to do with

a- Verdasco's brilliance

or

b - the virus that Murray had for days before the match and that stopped him from flying home for 3 days after it

or

c - a combination of both


Pretty sure Murray was up 2 sets to 1 and had ample opportunities to win the match. He simply didn't capitalize and choked by playing too defensive in important situations.



And please, don't even say Verdasco was playing brilliantly. It was a massive chokefest and unforced error fest from both sides.

batz
06-20-2009, 10:34 AM
Pretty sure Murray was up 2 sets to 1 and had ample opportunities to win the match. He simply didn't capitalize and choked by playing too defensive in important situations.

OK mate - that's your view and you're entitled to it.

BreakPoint
06-20-2009, 10:36 AM
OK - so you meant he didn't play to his seeding at AO and RG Fair enough. I still don't get your something wrong with the ranking system comment though.
To me, it just doesn't make sense for someone with only 1 GS title to be ranked above someone with 2 GS titles of the last 4. This allows someone who just plays a lot of tournaments to rack up the points even if they're not really the best player, like Jankovic or Kafelnikov. They need to add a stipulation in the ranking system that to be the top ranked player you also need to have more GS titles than anyone else below you, because let's face it, GS titles are the only ones that really matter and the only ones that the top players really focus on. Sampras only cared about the GS's. In 20 years, people will remember if you won Wimbledon. They won't remember who won Cincinnati.

NamRanger
06-20-2009, 10:39 AM
To me, it just doesn't make sense for someone with only 1 GS title to be ranked above someone with 2 GS titles of the last 4. This allows someone who just plays a lot of tournaments to rack up the points even if they're not really the best player, like Jankovic or Kafelnikov. They need to add a stipulation in the ranking system that to be the top ranked player you also need to have more GS titles than anyone else below you, because let's face it, GS titles are the only ones that really matter and the only ones that the top players really focus on. Sampras only cared about the GS's. In 20 years, people will remember if you won Wimbledon. They won't remember who won Cincinnati.



By doing this you simply kill tennis outside of the slams. The system the men have is fine. It was way worse when you had Kafelnikov and Rios at world #1.

batz
06-20-2009, 10:50 AM
To me, it just doesn't make sense for someone with only 1 GS title to be ranked above someone with 2 GS titles of the last 4. This allows someone who just plays a lot of tournaments to rack up the points even if they're not really the best player, like Jankovic, Safina, or Kafelnikov. They need to add a stipulation in the ranking system that to be the top ranked player you also need to have more GS titles than anyone else below you, because let's face it, GS titles are the only ones that really count and the only ones that the top players really focus on. Sampras only cared about the GS's. In 20 years, people will remember if you won Wimbledon. They won't remember who won Cincinnati.

I think you are conflating 2 things here:

1. How career performance is measured

2. How rankings should be derived on a day by day, week by week, month by month basis

For 1 - GS are the only show in town - I agree. Everything else is secondary.

Re 2 - you are coming pretty close to arguing that there should only be 4 tournaments per year as nothing else matters. Now, this is clearly not the view of the ATP nor has it ever been. There are more RP on offer from the other tournaments combined than from the slams combined - and it has been like this pretty much since the start of the ranking system. Finally your assertion that "They need to add a stipulation in the ranking system that to be the top ranked player you also need to have more GS titles than anyone else" is quite frankly ridicilous. Do you mean career GS titles held? Thw number won that season? In the last 12 months? What if the 4 slams are split between 4 people that year? Is nobody allowed to be number 1?

zagor
06-20-2009, 10:53 AM
I think you are conflating 2 things here:

1. How career performance is measured

2. How rankings should be derived on a day by day, week by week, month by month basis

For 1 - GS are the only show in town - I agree. Everything else is secondary.

Re 2 - you are coming pretty close to arguing that there should only be 4 tournaments per year as nothing else matters. Now, this is clearly not the view of the ATP nor has it ever been. There are more RP on offer from the other tournaments combined than from the slams combined - and it has been like this pretty much since the start of the ranking system. Finally your assertion that "They need to add a stipulation in the ranking system that to be the top ranked player you also need to have more GS titles than anyone else" is quite frankly ridicilous. Do you mean career GS titles held? Thw number won that season? In the last 12 months? What if the 4 slams are split between 4 people that year? Is nobody allowed to be number 1?

The only thing that matters is slams,just ask Pete :)

BreakPoint
06-20-2009, 11:01 AM
Finally your assertion that "They need to add a stipulation in the ranking system that to be the top ranked player you also need to have more GS titles than anyone else" is quite frankly ridicilous. Do you mean career GS titles held? Thw number won that season? In the last 12 months? What if the 4 slams are split between 4 people that year? Is nobody allowed to be number 1?
Of course I mean current GS titles (of the last 4). If the 4 GS titles are split between 4 people, then the number of total points determines who should be #1.

I'm not saying that only the GS should award points for the purposes of rankings. I'm saying that they keep the current ranking system and award points for all tournaments, but with the additional stipulation that to be ranked #1, you have to have more or equal GS titles than everyone else below you. Or else you run the risk of a scenario of someone winning all four Slams (current title holder to all 4), but NOT being ranked #1. Unlikely, but possible. Now how ridiculous would that be? That would make a mockery of the ranking system, don't you think?

NamRanger
06-20-2009, 11:08 AM
I think you are conflating 2 things here:

1. How career performance is measured

2. How rankings should be derived on a day by day, week by week, month by month basis

For 1 - GS are the only show in town - I agree. Everything else is secondary.

Re 2 - you are coming pretty close to arguing that there should only be 4 tournaments per year as nothing else matters. Now, this is clearly not the view of the ATP nor has it ever been. There are more RP on offer from the other tournaments combined than from the slams combined - and it has been like this pretty much since the start of the ranking system. Finally your assertion that "They need to add a stipulation in the ranking system that to be the top ranked player you also need to have more GS titles than anyone else" is quite frankly ridicilous. Do you mean career GS titles held? Thw number won that season? In the last 12 months? What if the 4 slams are split between 4 people that year? Is nobody allowed to be number 1?



The way the system works, a 2 slam holder will always overtake a 1 slam holder. Yes for a short period of time the 1 slam holder might overtake the 2 slam holder, but by the end of the year everything works out right.

batz
06-20-2009, 11:13 AM
Of course I mean current GS titles (of the last 4). If the 4 GS titles are split between 4 people, then the number of total points determines who should be #1.

I'm not saying that only the GS should award points for the purposes of rankings. I'm saying that they keep the current ranking system and award points for all tournaments, but with the additional stipulation that to be ranked #1, you have to have more or equal GS titles than everyone else below you. Or else you run the risk of a scenario of someone winning all four Slams (current title holder to all 4), but NOT being ranked #1. Unlikely, but possible. Now how ridiculous would that be? That would make a mockery of the ranking system, don't you think?

The scenario you paint whilst possible, is so unlikely that it could probably be ignored. It would involve one guy winning all the slams and a completely different guy winning all the MS and TMC plus a few other titles. For that reason, I don't think it is a scenario on which the basis of the ranking system should be determined.


We can agree to disagree. You think the number of slams won should affect the world number 1 slot. My view is that the ranking points totals include those points won from the 4 slams and that as such, slam performance is already reflected in a player's ranking. That statement holds as true for the player ranked 100 as the player ranked 1.

BreakPoint
06-20-2009, 11:17 AM
The way the system works, a 2 slam holder will always overtake a 1 slam holder. Yes for a short period of time the 1 slam holder might overtake the 2 slam holder, but by the end of the year everything works out right.
I don't think so. How about if the 1 Slam holder wins all 9 Masters series events and the Master's Cup? Then the 1 Slam holder would obviously be ranked above the 2 Slam holder at the end of the year.

batz
06-20-2009, 11:19 AM
I don't think so. How about if the 1 Slam holder wins all 9 Masters series events and the Master's Cup? Then the 1 Slam holder would obviously be ranked above the 2 Slam holder at the end of the year.

Given that no man has ever won 3 MS titles back to back, don't you think that scenario is just little far fetched?

And isn't it even more far fetched to think that there would another guy around at the same time who won 2 slams whilst superman was doing his stuff at the MS events?

BreakPoint
06-20-2009, 11:25 AM
The scenario you paint whilst possible, is so unlikely that it could probably be ignored. It would involve one guy winning all the slams and a completely different guy winning all the MS and TMC plus a few other titles. For that reason, I don't think it is a scenario on which the basis of the ranking system should be determined.

Not necessarily. The guy who does not win any GS titles could have gotten to the finals of all 4 GS and then only needs to win a few MS events to have more points than the guy who actually won all 4 GS's but didn't do as well in the MS events. You can also come up with a scenario in which a guy wins a lot of smaller events, but gets to the finals of many MS events and all the GS's being #1 even though he never won a GS or MS event.

NamRanger
06-20-2009, 11:27 AM
Not necessarily. The guy who does not win any GS titles could have gotten to the finals of all 4 GS and then only needs to win a few MS events to have more points than the guy who actually won all 4 GS's but didn't do as well in the MS events. You can also come up with a scenario in which a guy wins a lot of smaller events, but gets to the finals of many MS events and all the GS's being #1 even though he never won a GS or MS event.




This is a highly unlikely scenario as most likely the guy who won 2 slams would most likely do well in the other 2 slams and win a few masters himself.




The new system (that was revamped after Rios and Kafelnikov) makes sure that it is literally impossible for such things to happen.

maximo
06-20-2009, 11:44 AM
Not necessarily. The guy who does not win any GS titles could have gotten to the finals of all 4 GS and then only needs to win a few MS events to have more points than the guy who actually won all 4 GS's but didn't do as well in the MS events. You can also come up with a scenario in which a guy wins a lot of smaller events, but gets to the finals of many MS events and all the GS's being #1 even though he never won a GS or MS event.

Err, what about Safina?

Has she won a Slam? no.

BreakPoint
06-20-2009, 11:48 AM
Err, what about Safina?

Has she won a Slam? no.
Who cares about the WTA?

In any case, no, Safina should not be ranked #1 until she wins a GS, IMHO.

CountryHillbilly
06-20-2009, 12:01 PM
You know, Murray is gonna lose his 1000 points from Madrid in September. So he has to make them up during the hardcourt season. He may well do it...

batz
06-20-2009, 12:06 PM
You know, Murray is gonna lose his 1000 points from Madrid in September. So he has to make them up during the hardcourt season. He may well do it...

Why - is he banned from the new Shanghai MS where he can defend those Madrid points?:) ;)

jamesblakefan#1
07-02-2009, 01:37 AM
If Federer wins Wimbledon, he will be number 1 on the day after Wimbledon. Else Nadal will still be number 1 at that moment.

If Murray wins Wimbledon, he will be number 1 on the 20th of july
... but if Federer reaches the semifinal, Murray will lose his number 1 to Federer on the 3rd of august.

If Federer reaches the semifinal and Murray doesn't win Wimbledon, Federer will be number 1 on the 27th of july.

If Federer reaches the quarterfinal and Murray doesn't win Wimbledon, Federer will be number 1 on the 3rd of August.

The only way for Nadal to keep his number 1 until at least the 17th of august would be that Federer loses before the quarterfinal and Murray doesn't win Wimbledon. But even in that case, he would have to reach at least the final in Montreal to keep his number 1 on the 24th of august as he will lose his 800 points from the olympic games (Federer will lose 200 points from the olympics)

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showpost.php?p=3577367&postcount=21

Thanx malakas

coloskier
07-02-2009, 08:55 AM
Not necessarily. The guy who does not win any GS titles could have gotten to the finals of all 4 GS and then only needs to win a few MS events to have more points than the guy who actually won all 4 GS's but didn't do as well in the MS events. You can also come up with a scenario in which a guy wins a lot of smaller events, but gets to the finals of many MS events and all the GS's being #1 even though he never won a GS or MS event.

See "Davydenko".

vtmike
07-03-2009, 12:45 PM
Nah, Roddick will take him out in the semis.

LOL, some people speak such rubbish...

:oops: :lol: :lol: :oops:

swedechris
07-03-2009, 12:48 PM
Murray will have to adapt his style more to grass if he is going to be a winner of Wimby in the near future.

I.e. he needs to be much more aggressive and stay much closer to the baseline. ..Else its finito.

Blinkism
07-03-2009, 12:49 PM
:oops: :lol: :lol: :oops:

My sentiments exactly

It was a good run, though. The Murray-Wawrinka match was a smashing good time!

Tennis_Bum
07-03-2009, 11:55 PM
He will become #1 in the world on July 20 once his Indianopolis penalty expires!!

When this happens, the tennis world will admire the true brilliance of Andy Murray.

Which year are you talking about? Or should we hold our breath? Are you crying your eyes out because Andy is losing or because you lost money betting on Andy? Or because of both?

ubermeyer
08-12-2009, 12:56 PM
That's a big if. You try having the weight of a nation on your shoulders, in the most prestigious tennis tournament in the history of the sport. It will be no easy feat, especially since most likely he will have to go through alot of tough opponents (Safin, Roddick, Federer) to win it.

safin is going to retire

what about nadal?

Tiberius
08-12-2009, 01:19 PM
safin is going to retire

what about nadal?

I think Nadal can take Murray out if he is fit...