PDA

View Full Version : 2-year Ranking still on the table?


FlashFlare11
12-04-2011, 02:39 PM
According to this article, the 2-year ranking system is still a viable change:

http://www.10sballs.com/2011/12/04/roger-federer-and-rafael-nadal-at-odds-over-choice-for-atp-chief/

What do you guys think?

Towser83
12-04-2011, 02:52 PM
Very bad idea. I will be disgusted if this change is adopted.

AM95
12-04-2011, 02:58 PM
Very bad idea. I will be disgusted if this change is adopted.

horrible idea. would virtually depreciate the value of being world #1.

FlashFlare11
12-04-2011, 03:00 PM
Very bad idea. I will be disgusted if this change is adopted.

Yeah, I agree. I don't want to see it pass either. But, is it possible that it could pass?

Also, I like seeing Federer extend his relationship with Annacone. I know this has been discussed before, but I like what Annacone has done and I'm sure the results are going to show next year.

aprilfool
12-04-2011, 06:43 PM
Bad idea.....

OddJack
12-04-2011, 06:53 PM
Rodge had a meeting with Rafa after London. Chris Clarey had a phone interview with him in which he mentions Nadal and him went over some issues and tried to decide what's best for the players. Federer also says :

“I just think it’s unfortunate that maybe we hurt the tour ourselves sometimes,” Federer said. “I’m not addressing any players in particular. It’s just an overall feeling. I think it’s a rare thing that athletes of a certain sport are negative toward their sport.”


Federer said he wished players would reserve their complaints about the schedule for more private, constructive forums, but then Federer is that rare veteran star who has never had a major injury.

I liked that part. Whining in public about the schedule cannot help players in anyway. It's not like campaigning for election or soliciting for votes that lecturing the public would help or hurt any future decisions.

I believe the article above is actually based on the Clarey's interview, published in NYT:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/03/sports/tennis/03iht-arena03.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1
.
.
.

Mustard
12-04-2011, 07:19 PM
Hate the idea. A 2-year ranking system doesn't work, and is why Vilas didn't get to number 1 in 1977, and why the rankings were often strange in the years following until a 1-year system was adopted in the mid-1980s. I'm not sure if Djokovic would even be number 1 right now if 2010 results counted as well as 2011 results.

SirGounder
12-04-2011, 08:09 PM
Hate the idea. A 2-year ranking system doesn't work, and is why Vilas didn't get to number 1 in 1977, and why the rankings were often strange in the years following until a 1-year system was adopted in the mid-1980s. I'm not sure if Djokovic would even be number 1 right now if 2010 results counted as well as 2011 results.

Djokovic probably wouldn't be #1 because Nadal would be riding his 3 slam season from 2010.

It's interesting that Federer is against the 2 year system. I might be very wrong in my thinking but wouldn't it also potentially benefit Federer as well? The guy is pretty darn consistent year in and year out. He might not have lost his #1 ranking to Nadal with a 2 year system. It really seems like Federer has all the players' best interest in mind.

DragonBlaze
12-04-2011, 08:19 PM
Djokovic probably wouldn't be #1 because Nadal would be riding his 3 slam season from 2010.

It's interesting that Federer is against the 2 year system. I might be very wrong in my thinking but wouldn't it also potentially benefit Federer as well? The guy is pretty darn consistent year in and year out. He might not have lost his #1 ranking to Nadal with a 2 year system. It really seems like Federer has all the players' best interest in mind.

Indeed, here is the full quote.

Do you have any thoughts at all on the suggestion made by some people we should go to a two-year ranking in tennis, like they do in golf, rather than a one-year period?

ROGER FEDERER: My opinion on the two-year ranking?

Q. Yes.

ROGER FEDERER: I'm not a big fan of it just because I think it would make things rather boring. But that's my personal opinion. Other than that, as the president of the Player Council, I think it's not a good thing for the lower-ranked players, to be quite honest. I think it's going to be a struggle for them to make a big breakthrough. It's going to take them multiple breakthroughs. So the dream of having one great tournament, then making a move, in my opinion, is never going to happen.

I like golf, but I couldn't tell you who's in the top 10 of golf right now. I couldn't even mention four players. This is where I think tennis lives from the weekly rankings we have, the changes. You guys love it, I think. You guys like writing stories and the debates about what's going on.

If we have a two-year ranking, things would be so slow and nothing would really move. I can't support it as a president of the Player Council and I have to look at all the players in the eye.

I know it could be a good thing for me or for Rafa or for other good players because we would stay at the top for a very long time. For us to move down in the rankings would take something extraordinary. But for the lower-ranked players, I don't think it's a good thing and that's why I can't support it.

http://www.goroger.net/interview/2011/masters111124rrfish.php

FlashFlare11
12-04-2011, 08:29 PM
Djokovic probably wouldn't be #1 because Nadal would be riding his 3 slam season from 2010.

It's interesting that Federer is against the 2 year system. I might be very wrong in my thinking but wouldn't it also potentially benefit Federer as well? The guy is pretty darn consistent year in and year out. He might not have lost his #1 ranking to Nadal with a 2 year system. It really seems like Federer has all the players' best interest in mind.

This is exactly why I love the guy. Just a great leader and ambassador for the sport.

By the way, what is the argument for a 2-year ranking? I know Nadal is in favor of it, but is there anyone else?

MichaelNadal
12-04-2011, 08:42 PM
What Federer said about it is spot on, it's just not appropriate.

purge
12-04-2011, 09:11 PM
im actually surprised its even still being discussed. so far nadal has been the only one ive heard openly wishing for a 2 year ranking system. maybe murray would like the idea too and djokovic would also benefit right now obviously.

but it would suck for anyone outside the top rankings of course. and also for the media and the fans. basically what fed says is 100% spot on and the whole thing shouldve been stamped 'bad idea' a dozen times over by now

OddJack
12-04-2011, 09:17 PM
It's now has gone under the table.

namelessone
12-05-2011, 12:13 AM
According to this article, the 2-year ranking system is still a viable change:

http://www.10sballs.com/2011/12/04/roger-federer-and-rafael-nadal-at-odds-over-choice-for-atp-chief/

What do you guys think?

It's a bad idea and outside of Nadal I have not heard ONE GUY talking in favor of it.

Towser83
12-05-2011, 11:58 AM
This is one the reasons why Federer does deserve sportsmanship awards. I mean I've said it before, on a 2 year ranking system Nadal might never have overtaken Federer in 2008. With Federer's 2007 season still counted he's got points from 4 slam wins to Nadal's 3, and then in 2010 they're both holding points from 3 slams. Federer would have at least broken Sampras's all time weeks at number one record, maybe by quite a lot.

But he knows it's wrong and hurts lower ranked players trying to come through. He doesn't use his posisition on the player council to change things to his advantage.

marcub
12-05-2011, 12:09 PM
[I]I just think its unfortunate that maybe we hurt the tour ourselves sometimes, Federer said. Im not addressing any players in particular. Its just an overall feeling. I think its a rare thing that athletes of a certain sport are negative toward their sport.
.

Fed can be a great politician, sneaky too, mind you. he's making poor Ralph look like crap. Just like with the blue clay issue, he made it sound like - hey, you b*stards, you not lettin poor rafa get it his own way, in his own country!

Which is to say - look people, Ralph is at it again, whining!

Not nice.

Towser83
12-05-2011, 12:20 PM
Fed can be a great politician, sneaky too, mind you. he's making poor Ralph look like crap. Just like with the blue clay issue, he made it sound like - hey, you b*stards, you not lettin poor rafa get it his own way, in his own country!

Which is to say - look people, Ralph is at it again, whining!

Not nice.

how nasty of him to stick up for Rafa!

Mustard
12-05-2011, 12:33 PM
With a two-year ranking system, the current top 2 would be:

1. Rafael Nadal - 22,045 points
2. Novak Djokovic - 19,870 points

So, Nadal would still be number 1 and Djokovic would still be chasing him due to 2010 results counting. Djokovic only had 6,240 points at this point last year compared to 13,630 at this moment, covering the year 2011. Nadal had 12,450 points at this time last year and 9,595 points at this moment, covering the year 2011.

The two-year system means that the rankings lag behind current events a lot more than the one-year system. Someone in the media needs to point this out and kill the two-year idea stone dead, because there's nobody who thinks Nadal should be number 1 right now as far as results go, yet he would be the current world number 1 under the two-year system.

Monsieur_DeLarge
12-05-2011, 01:09 PM
With a two-year ranking system, the current top 2 would be:

1. Rafael Nadal - 22,045 points
2. Novak Djokovic - 19,870 points

I don't know what's being mooted for tennis, but I was under the impression that with other sports which use the 104-week system (e.g. golf?), points from more than a year ago only count for half. So Djokovic would have this year's points plus 3120, while Nadal would have this year's plus 6225. Not sure if that makes a difference.

Still a bad idea, though.


Regards,
MDL

TheMusicLover
12-05-2011, 01:17 PM
With a two-year ranking system, the current top 2 would be:

1. Rafael Nadal - 22,045 points
2. Novak Djokovic - 19,870 points

So, Nadal would still be number 1 and Djokovic would still be chasing him due to 2010 results counting. Djokovic only had 6,240 points at this point last year compared to 13,630 at this moment, covering the year 2011. Nadal had 12,450 points at this time last year and 9,595 points at this moment, covering the year 2011.

The two-year system means that the rankings lag behind current events a lot more than the one-year system. Someone in the media needs to point this out and kill the two-year idea stone dead, because there's nobody who thinks Nadal should be number 1 right now as far as results go, yet he would be the current world number 1 under the two-year system.

Well said.
The fact alone that Djokovic wouldn't even be #1 right now when the 2-year system would be implied, even after his fantastic season (and I'm not even a fan, mind you!) is reason enough to dismiss this dreadful idea.

He would have been robbed just like Vilas has been in the past.

Towser83
12-05-2011, 02:33 PM
With a two-year ranking system, the current top 2 would be:

1. Rafael Nadal - 22,045 points
2. Novak Djokovic - 19,870 points

So, Nadal would still be number 1 and Djokovic would still be chasing him due to 2010 results counting. Djokovic only had 6,240 points at this point last year compared to 13,630 at this moment, covering the year 2011. Nadal had 12,450 points at this time last year and 9,595 points at this moment, covering the year 2011.

The two-year system means that the rankings lag behind current events a lot more than the one-year system. Someone in the media needs to point this out and kill the two-year idea stone dead, because there's nobody who thinks Nadal should be number 1 right now as far as results go, yet he would be the current world number 1 under the two-year system.

Thanks for that, Mustard. Just makes it painfully obvious that a system in which one guy can win 3 slams and 5 masters in a year can be ranked behind someone with one slam and one masters, is ridiculously unfair and a total joke. It would make the questionable WTA ranking look spot on by comparison.

Not only does it lag behind, but if Djokovic was still ranked 2, and had a bad year next year and Nadal had a good one, he could never even see his ranking "catch up" and never be number one.

I don't know why Nadal wants this, i'm sure he can't have looked into the implications too much. Maybe someone should explain that he wouldn't have finished 2008 as number one despite his hard work, or ever overtaken Federer that year. Or they should ask him whether he feels he should be number one right now, because that's what this system means. I'm sure he'd realise it's not the way to go, whatever his feelings about the rankings now.

One thing I have to say, is if you are going to make suggestions about change, you should at least look into the effects of it, it seems like Nadal hasn't if he really does feel the change is the way to go.

FlashFlare11
12-05-2011, 03:44 PM
Thanks for that, Mustard. Just makes it painfully obvious that a system in which one guy can win 3 slams and 5 masters in a year can be ranked behind someone with one slam and one masters, is ridiculously unfair and a total joke. It would make the questionable WTA ranking look spot on by comparison.

Not only does it lag behind, but if Djokovic was still ranked 2, and had a bad year next year and Nadal had a good one, he could never even see his ranking "catch up" and never be number one.

I don't know why Nadal wants this, i'm sure he can't have looked into the implications too much. Maybe someone should explain that he wouldn't have finished 2008 as number one despite his hard work, or ever overtaken Federer that year. Or they should ask him whether he feels he should be number one right now, because that's what this system means. I'm sure he'd realise it's not the way to go, whatever his feelings about the rankings now.

One thing I have to say, is if you are going to make suggestions about change, you should at least look into the effects of it, it seems like Nadal hasn't if he really does feel the change is the way to go.

This is exactly what I was thinking. The tour shouldn't have to change for one person. I suppose one could make a case if multiple players were asking for this, but they aren't.

I like Nadal, but I think he's being a bit selfish pursuing this. It shouldn't be the tour changing to suit him, it should be him that should change to suit the tour. This and the shortening of the schedule that he and Murray advocated just doesn't bode well. The ATP has been like this for years, and now all of a sudden we're going to change it because 1 or 2 players don't like it?

Seeing as how he's been calling for this since the French Open, I think he know the implications. I mean, how many times has Federer stated his reasons for opposing it?

Anyway, does anyone know when they'll be voting on this or whether there is more that needs to be done before a vote?

Mustard
12-05-2011, 03:49 PM
The whole point is that it's supposed to be very hard, almost impossible, to stay at the top year after year after year. Tennis is very demanding where the strong survive, and ultimately, even the very best will fade. Nadal is probably feeling his energy tank running a bit low and knows he'll have to play a lot of tennis, and get the top results, in order to stay up amongst the elite of the game. He's used to being at the top and doesn't want to let that go, but he can never rest for long to take stock and that brings pressure.

_maxi
12-05-2011, 03:57 PM
Mustard, you explained it very well, thank you.

It's just out of my mind how a player can be so egoist and speak supporting this idiotic two year system that is very unfair.

InspectorRacquet
12-05-2011, 04:01 PM
It seems that the two year system has too many flaws and only serves to benefit the once good, not the current good. The one year system benefits the player as he plays, not after he's played.

Mustard
12-05-2011, 04:15 PM
It seems that the two year system has too many flaws and only serves to benefit the once good, not the current good. The one year system benefits the player as he plays, not after he's played.

Even the 1-year system can sometimes take a while to reflect current events. If we think back to Nadal's win in the 2008 Wimbledon final, Federer still stayed at number 1 until mid-August that year, even though most people felt Nadal had overtaken Federer with the Wimbledon win. However, the 2-year system lags a LOT more behind current events, where results from up to 2 years ago are still affecting matters.

I honestly think the case for a 6-month system is stronger than the 2-year system, but the 6-month system would be much too short because it wouldn't take consistency over a whole year into account and would be too empirical. The 1-year system is the correct one, in my opinion.

beast of mallorca
12-05-2011, 04:25 PM
It's never gonna happen. At least not in our lifetime.

Mustard
12-05-2011, 04:30 PM
It's never gonna happen. At least not in our lifetime.

I only hope you're right. Federer's words on the matter were spot on, really. The 2-year system would enable the top guys to spend longer at the top, but it would be very frustrating for players looking to make a move up the rankings. Nadal should think about his 2005, how he went from being outside the top 50 at the start of the year to number 2 by late July. That certainly wouldn't have happened with a 2-year system.

Towser83
12-05-2011, 04:37 PM
I don't think nadal is exactly being selfish, I mean he is probably looking at his own situation, but I'm sure he hasn't thought it through and the implications for the rest of the players and how it can impact unfairly upon anyone in the right (or should I say, wrong) situation, even a top player like what we see with Novak this year. But It will have a bigger effect on lower ranked players and players breaking through (ironic as Mustard says because Nadal wouldn't have made his big breakthrough in 2005 under this 2 year system), and really though he might feel the pace of trying to keep up, he's comfortably inside the top 4 so he shouldn't worry about that. I think if he looked at all the facts he'd agree it's not the right move to make.

purge
12-05-2011, 08:39 PM
I don't think nadal is exactly being selfish, I mean he is probably looking at his own situation, but I'm sure he hasn't thought it through and the implications for the rest of the players and how it can impact unfairly upon anyone in the right (or should I say, wrong) situation, even a top player like what we see with Novak this year. But It will have a bigger effect on lower ranked players and players breaking through (ironic as Mustard says because Nadal wouldn't have made his big breakthrough in 2005 under this 2 year system), and really though he might feel the pace of trying to keep up, he's comfortably inside the top 4 so he shouldn't worry about that. I think if he looked at all the facts he'd agree it's not the right move to make.
i believe he and fed wouldve talked about it sometime after he brought the idea up and fed wouldve told him all these things that have been stated. so i dont understand why rafa still thinks it would be a good idea.

saying he probably hasnt thought it through and hasnt realized the impact it would have on the system is not correct imo

Fate Archer
12-05-2011, 08:57 PM
i believe he and fed wouldve talked about it sometime after he brought the idea up and fed wouldve told him all these things that have been stated. so i dont understand why rafa still thinks it would be a good idea.

saying he probably hasnt thought it through and hasnt realized the impact it would have on the system is not correct imo

This. Nadal has been bringing the 2 year rank system since 2009 when he started to feel the pressure of being #1.

Beats me how he still thinks that way.

If we had a 2 year rank system to begin with Nadal might never had taken the #1 spot in the first place.

DMan
12-05-2011, 10:56 PM
Of course a 2 year ranking system is a DUMB idea.

And who is the ONLY PLAYER in FAVOR of a 2 year DUMB ranking system?

Rafael Nadumb!

Any questions?

DUMB = Nadal

Benhur
12-06-2011, 07:24 AM
The one-year system is fine. It would be absurd to change it to anything else. If you want to know how a player is doing at any given point during the year, you just check the points accumulated since January 1st, which used to be called the ATP Race. They’ve eliminatedf it because it (supposedly) confused people, but you can still see it in other places like http://live-tennis.eu/race
At the end of the year, the Race ranking is always the same as the normal ranking, of course. But it was a useful thing to have if you wanted to check how things were at any given point.

In any case, this notion of a two-year ranking system makes no sense at all to me.

Towser83
12-06-2011, 08:21 AM
i believe he and fed wouldve talked about it sometime after he brought the idea up and fed wouldve told him all these things that have been stated. so i dont understand why rafa still thinks it would be a good idea.

saying he probably hasnt thought it through and hasnt realized the impact it would have on the system is not correct imo

True, it would be hard to believe that someone hadn't explained these things, but I just can't believe he would push for something he knows to be so unfair. That is very selfish indeed..

The one year system while not perfect, is the best system. The events we have are arranged over a year, so the ranking should be done over a year. Simples.

akv89
12-06-2011, 08:34 AM
I wonder if Nadal will vocally support this idea as we get closer to the end of the upcoming year, considering that if adopted, it would take even more effort from him to regain the #1 ranking since Djokovic's 2011 would be counted for another year.

Devilito
12-06-2011, 08:52 AM
one of the most idiotic ideas ever. Tennis players are lucky to have a productive 10 year long career. With a 2 year system that's only 5 chances instead of 10 to compete for top spot. Also, there's nothing like skewed seeding and rankings based on someone's performance 16 months prior. Or someone dominating for a year and a couple months and deciding they're going to take the remaining 10 months off because nobody has a mathematical shot at catching up. This, along with the issue of blue clay, is why you never ask Nadal about anything that goes beyond, “what’s your favorite pizza topping”

TheMusicLover
12-06-2011, 12:12 PM
I would have understood Rafa's reasons for pledging for a 2-year ranking system a couple of years ago, but right now, it's just plain stupid, even for his own cause. Very strange indeed.

dh003i
12-06-2011, 06:03 PM
I think this is just Nadal being selfish. It is difficult to believe that he has not been made aware of the implications of the 2-year system, yet he still advocates it. Also, as the VP of the Players Council, it is his obligation to think these things through and understand them before taking a stand. If he can't do that, he should step down and let someone who has the best interest of the sport at heart step up. Perhaps Djokovic.

A 2-year ranking system is fine for "sports" where players' careers last many decades, like golf...or billiards. It is horrible for tennis.

vernonbc
12-06-2011, 10:58 PM
Not surprising for this board to immediately jump to bashing Rafa because he has an idea. :???: Guaranteed that Rafa has discussed this extensively with many if not all of the other players and that most or many of them are in favour of some kind of revamping of the system.

The main reason for making changes is to protect players who miss months due to illness or injury and lose their ranking through no fault of their own. The whole point of rankings and seedings is to allot places in tournaments according to the players abilities and past performance so that the best players aren't meeting and knocking each other out in the earliest rounds. Look at how upside down things were when Serena came back and knocked out some very good highly ranked players.

It isn't fair to those who work very hard to earn their top rankings through the year and then have to play an elite player who has an artificially low ranking. The higher ranked player is penalized by losing ranking points and money they would have likely earned by advancing further in the tournaments.

For the lower ranked players who are trying to work their way up, missing a couple of months due to injury can have a massive negative effect on their ranking and being protected by being able to count some points from their previous year might make all the difference between playing Challengers or getting an opportunity on the big tour. So please, stop letting your rampant dislike of Rafa get in the way of logical thinking and realize that he's not worried about his own #1 or 2 ranking, he's thinking of all the players.

TMF
12-06-2011, 11:17 PM
This is another reason why Fed has way more fans than Rafa. Fed wants what's best for all the players, but Nadal only think for himself. Anything that he wishes for change are benefitting him, regardless how other players suffer. Very selfish guy.

namelessone
12-07-2011, 12:18 AM
I would have understood Rafa's reasons for pledging for a 2-year ranking system a couple of years ago, but right now, it's just plain stupid, even for his own cause. Very strange indeed.

It comes from Nadal playing too much golf :)

Mustard
12-07-2011, 06:09 AM
Not surprising for this board to immediately jump to bashing Rafa because he has an idea. :???: Guaranteed that Rafa has discussed this extensively with many if not all of the other players and that most or many of them are in favour of some kind of revamping of the system.

I agree with Rafa on many things, but strongly disagree with him on this rankings matter.

The main reason for making changes is to protect players who miss months due to illness or injury and lose their ranking through no fault of their own.

Well, that's why tennis is the survival of the fittest. It's always been this way. It's supposed to be hard to stay up in the elite of the world rankings. If Nadal or anyone else wants to stay up there/get up there, then they must (continue to) get the necessary results in the tournaments.

The whole point of rankings and seedings is to allot places in tournaments according to the players abilities and past performance so that the best players aren't meeting and knocking each other out in the earliest rounds.

Rankings go by results over the last 52 weeks, and that's the same for everybody. As for seedings, the top players now have 32 seeds in the majors, when just over a decade ago there used to be 16 seeds. With the 16 seed system, we could have had the world number 1 facing the world number 17 in the first round. These days, that match couldn't happen until later in the tournament because the world number 17 would be seeded.

For the lower ranked players who are trying to work their way up, missing a couple of months due to injury can have a massive negative effect on their ranking and being protected by being able to count some points from their previous year might make all the difference between playing Challengers or getting an opportunity on the big tour. So please, stop letting your rampant dislike of Rafa get in the way of logical thinking and realize that he's not worried about his own #1 or 2 ranking, he's thinking of all the players.

Like I said upthread, Nadal would be number 1 at this moment with a 2-year ranking system. We all know that Rafa shouldn't be number 1 at this moment.

akv89
12-07-2011, 06:29 AM
The main reason for making changes is to protect players who miss months due to illness or injury and lose their ranking through no fault of their own. The whole point of rankings and seedings is to allot places in tournaments according to the players abilities and past performance so that the best players aren't meeting and knocking each other out in the earliest rounds. Look at how upside down things were when Serena came back and knocked out some very good highly ranked players.


If this is the main reason, it's not a convincing one. Don't we already have a protected ranking system? If that system feels insufficient, we can change it so injured players can be seeded more favorably, but there is no need to revamp the entire ranking system just for players who are injured.

dh003i
12-07-2011, 03:08 PM
Not surprising for this board to immediately jump to bashing Rafa because he has an idea. :???: Guaranteed that Rafa has discussed this extensively with many if not all of the other players and that most or many of them are in favour of some kind of revamping of the system.

Nadal is the only player who favors it that we've heard about.

The main reason for making changes is to protect players who miss months due to illness or injury and lose their ranking through no fault of their own.

Being injury prone is just as much a demerit as having a weak serve. It is ridiculous to say that players bear no responsibility for how injury prone they are. Now, to the extent that a player does have a natural tendency to be injury-prone, again, it is a demerit.

It is "no fault of my own" that I don't have the hand-eye coordination to be a top ranked player in the ATP. I just wasn't born with it. Nor were 99% of people. Maybe we should do something so that everyone has a chance to be a top ranked player in the ATP -- after all, it is no fault of theirs that they weren't born with the ability to play great tennis.

The whole point of rankings and seedings is to allot places in tournaments according to the players abilities and past performance so that the best players aren't meeting and knocking each other out in the earliest rounds. Look at how upside down things were when Serena came back and knocked out some very good highly ranked players.

It isn't fair to those who work very hard to earn their top rankings through the year and then have to play an elite player who has an artificially low ranking. The higher ranked player is penalized by losing ranking points

This just illustrates complete ignorance. On a rolling 1-year basis, all points over the last year are accumulated. Djokovic, Nadal, and Federer are not at any "disadvantage" vis-a-vis players in the top 50, 100, 500, or 1000 in terms of what they'd have to do -- on the court -- to achieve a certain rank.

If Djokovic accumulates more points than any other player over the next year, he will be the #1 ranked player at this time next year. End of story. It is no more difficult for him mathematically than it is for any other player. If anything, it is easier for the top-ranked players due to not having to earn wildcard spots and various other luxuries.

Benhur
12-07-2011, 05:45 PM
No matter how I look at it, I fail to see what the point would be of a two-year ranking system, or who would benefit from it. As far as I can see: nobody. It would only create confusion and make the rankings irrelevant.

On a two-year revolving system, most of the rearrangements and changes in ranking that occur in the current system would simply be delayed between several months and up to a year. On such a system, for example, Federer would not have become number 1 until at least the fall of 2004. Nadal would not have become number 2 in the summer of 2005, but several months later, sometime in 2006. And he would not have become number 1 in 2008, not until the AO 2009. Then he would have lost the ranking anyway probably before the end of the year and would not have regained it until late in 2010. And he would still have it now (!) I haven't done any of these calculations, but it seems to me it would probably be something like that. Such a system would be completely at odds with what we are used to, and it would make it very difficult to compare year-end rankings with the past, except by ignoring it.

Tennis goes full circle in the space of a year, so it makes sense that the ranking is a revolving 52 week system, such that the rankings at the end of the year reflect the performance for that year alone. I wonder how this crazy idea got into Nadal's head or who put it there.

Now, if someone wants to propose a two-year system for paying taxes, I might be more amenable to the idea. And 4 years would be even better. Make taxes an olympic event.

vive le beau jeu !
12-08-2011, 03:05 AM
I don't think nadal is exactly being selfish, I mean he is probably looking at his own situation, but I'm sure he hasn't thought it through and the implications for the rest of the players
oh lo siento i ate all the (manchego cheese) cake.

didn't think about you, chicos.
but for sure i'm not 100% selfish, no ? jeje...

The main reason for making changes is to protect players who miss months due to illness or injury and lose their ranking through no fault of their own.
(well... if it happened for burning your hand on a hot plate, you could claim it's their own fault !)
but why only 2 years ?... why not more ? why not having borg still ranked #2 during his early 90's comeback ? :rolleyes:

Tennis goes full circle in the space of a year, so it makes sense that the ranking is a revolving 52 week system, such that the rankings at the end of the year reflect the performance for that year alone. I wonder how this crazy idea got into Nadal's head or who put it there.
end of discussion.

the tennis cycle is a yearly cycle... and so has to be the ranking system !
let's keep it logical, please.
Now, if someone wants to propose a two-year system for paying taxes, I might be more amenable to the idea. And 4 years would be even better. Make taxes an olympic event.
:)
(but shhh... don't talk about taxes in front of the nadal)

_maxi
12-08-2011, 05:07 AM
Not surprising for this board to immediately jump to bashing Rafa because he has an idea. :???: Guaranteed that Rafa has discussed this extensively with many if not all of the other players and that most or many of them are in favour of some kind of revamping of the system.

The main reason for making changes is to protect players who miss months due to illness or injury and lose their ranking through no fault of their own. The whole point of rankings and seedings is to allot places in tournaments according to the players abilities and past performance so that the best players aren't meeting and knocking each other out in the earliest rounds. Look at how upside down things were when Serena came back and knocked out some very good highly ranked players.

It isn't fair to those who work very hard to earn their top rankings through the year and then have to play an elite player who has an artificially low ranking. The higher ranked player is penalized by losing ranking points and money they would have likely earned by advancing further in the tournaments.

For the lower ranked players who are trying to work their way up, missing a couple of months due to injury can have a massive negative effect on their ranking and being protected by being able to count some points from their previous year might make all the difference between playing Challengers or getting an opportunity on the big tour. So please, stop letting your rampant dislike of Rafa get in the way of logical thinking and realize that he's not worried about his own #1 or 2 ranking, he's thinking of all the players.
Actually you are the one that's not using logic here. Your only logic is: "If rafito says it then it must be good". Mustard is very positive about Nadal always, and he disagrees with this idea and has posted his arguments before your post and it's pretty much what most people think here. It's not about hate.

_maxi
12-09-2011, 10:30 AM
No more discussion here? I hate to see my post as the last.

Mustard
12-09-2011, 10:40 AM
What more can be said? The idea seems very unpopular and I hope it's never adopted.

DMan
12-09-2011, 11:20 PM
No matter how I look at it, I fail to see what the point would be of a two-year ranking system, or who would benefit from it. As far as I can see: nobody. It would only create confusion and make the rankings irrelevant.

You fail to see the point of a 2 year ranking system? Well, who is the ONLY one advocating for it?

ANSWER: Na-dull, Na-dumbski

And there lies the one and only miniscule reason why there is even a thread on this topic.

Thankfully, even the *********s have come out against it, as they know what a ridiculous idea it is.

I wonder how this crazy idea got into Nadal's head or who put it there.

Without a brain, it's easy to see how Uncle Toni just poured the idea right into the Na-dull speaking orifice. And out came the stupidity idea of a 2 year ranking system.

And oh, it benefits exactly who at the moment?

Pity poor Nadal. CAN'T HANDLE THE PRESSURE!

DMan
12-09-2011, 11:34 PM
Not surprising for this board to immediately jump to bashing Rafa because he has an idea. :???:

He is being bashed because:
1) He deserves it
2) His idea is an absolute idiotic idea.

Guaranteed that Rafa has discussed this extensively with many if not all of the other players and that most or many of them are in favour of some kind of revamping of the system.
Guaranteed by who? And just who agrees with him? And where is your source that many players favor revamping the ranking system?

The main reason for making changes is to protect players who miss months due to illness or injury and lose their ranking through no fault of their own.

Why is any ranking protection necessary?

If you are injured, that's part of life. Rankings are a current reflection of what has happened recently. Not on what should have or would ahve or could have happened.

The whole point of rankings and seedings is to allot places in tournaments according to the players abilities and past performance

NO, THEY ARE ABSOLUTELY NOT! Rankings are the current reflection of a how players have fared in the last 52 weeks. Plain and simple. The seedings simply follow the rankings ( a mistake, but an argument for another day). Abilities mean nothing. The computer knows nothing of a player's ability. Only wins and losses.

Look at how upside down things were when Serena came back and knocked out some very good highly ranked players.

That was the WTA, which has an abysmal ranking system, to go along with its abysmal, phonier than thou #1 ranked players. Serena may have knocked off highly ranked players. Doesn't mean they were very good, or better than her.


It isn't fair to those who work very hard to earn their top rankings through the year and then have to play an elite player who has an artificially low ranking.

Huh? Not fair to who? Draws are done randomly. And exactly which 'elite' players have artificially low rankings? ? ! ? :confused:

The higher ranked player is penalized by losing ranking points and money they would have likely earned by advancing further in the tournaments.

Exactly what are you talking about? You know nothing of how the current system works!
No matter who you are, it's all about how you perform in tournaments. You lose, you don't get the money or ranking points. Again, plain and simple.

For the lower ranked players who are trying to work their way up, missing a couple of months due to injury can have a massive negative effect on their ranking and being protected by being able to count some points from their previous year might make all the difference between playing Challengers or getting an opportunity on the big tour.

If you are injured, that's life. And tough luck. Deal with it! You snooze, you lose! No one gets a free ride. Tennis is a performance based sport. Always has been. You don't sign multi-year contracts based on what you did in the past or what someone else thinks you can do in the future.

So please, stop letting your rampant dislike of Rafa get in the way of logical thinking and realize that he's not worried about his own #1 or 2 ranking, he's thinking of all the players.

This takes the cake this year for the single worst, and dumbest comment! Congratulations!

Logical thinking? THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO LOGIC WHATSOEVER FOR A 2 YEAR RANKING SYSTEM!

And furthermore, Rafa doesn't think or care about anyone but himself. ROFLMYFAO at anyone who thinks otherwise!

monfed
12-09-2011, 11:45 PM
The selfish Nadal rears his ugly head again. Thank god we still have Federer as tennis's chief ambassador.

merlinpinpin
12-10-2011, 12:13 AM
Awful idea, of course. Each tournament (except for the olympic games) is played every year, so a yearly ranking system is the only one that can work.

And yes, the "two-year" bit seems tailor-made to benefit one single player only (the one who is putting this idea forward, I wonder this is a coincidence? ;)). Otherwise, why not push this idea to the limit and suggest a 10-year ranking system so that Federer can be #1 for a few more years even if he retires tomorrow? ;)

Towser83
12-10-2011, 08:32 AM
Not surprising for this board to immediately jump to bashing Rafa because he has an idea. :???: Guaranteed that Rafa has discussed this extensively with many if not all of the other players and that most or many of them are in favour of some kind of revamping of the system.

And no surprise to see you leap to his defense when he puts forward an idea so unfair and lacking in logic that even a lot of FAIR Nadal FANS dismiss it. And why is it guaranteed, and who guarantees it? You? Name one other player who has supported it? I can't think of one yet you think it's "most" players? A bit desperate to defend nadal.

The main reason for making changes is to protect players who miss months due to illness or injury and lose their ranking through no fault of their own. The whole point of rankings and seedings is to allot places in tournaments according to the players abilities and past performance so that the best players aren't meeting and knocking each other out in the earliest rounds. Look at how upside down things were when Serena came back and knocked out some very good highly ranked players.

Getting injured is tough luck. Now players have protected seedings. What about players who play a great season but then under a 2 year system wouldn't be ranked high up but would meet a top player early on. They'd be the hot player in form and some top ranked guy would have to play them early on becuase the stupid 2 year ranking system doesn't reflect that they are a top player at the moment. It's more likely to be dangerous playing a guy in form who hasn't got their ranking up because a 2 year system takes too long to reflect their current playing level, than playing a formerly great player who has been out for a long time and thus not even in form.

When talking about "past performances" those perfomances should be recent.Rankings should reflect a player's form, not what they did 2 years ago.

It isn't fair to those who work very hard to earn their top rankings through the year and then have to play an elite player who has an artificially low ranking. The higher ranked player is penalized by losing ranking points and money they would have likely earned by advancing further in the tournaments.

In 2005 Nadal worked his way up from 50 in the world, on a two year ranking an elite player like Federer might have drawn the soon to be number 2 and FO champion in the first round of that tournament instead of the semis. It isn't fair to someone who works hard to attain a top ranking but doesn't actually get it because they are still carrying the points from last year before they made major improvements to their game. And like I said giving current form players an artifically low ranking doesn't benefit the seeded players they will meet early and possibly beat. If you are number 4 and then get injured for a year, you will be playing at far lower a level than your previous number 4 ranking. Look at Del Potro, he is still working back towards than level. What's worse is being one of the best players in the world but your ranking holding you back allowing you to meet seeded players early because of a moronic 2 year system.

For the lower ranked players who are trying to work their way up, missing a couple of months due to injury can have a massive negative effect on their ranking and being protected by being able to count some points from their previous year might make all the difference between playing Challengers or getting an opportunity on the big tour. So please, stop letting your rampant dislike of Rafa get in the way of logical thinking and realize that he's not worried about his own #1 or 2 ranking, he's thinking of all the players.


If you are low ranked you are not winning that many matches and thus not playing that many and so if you are getting big injuries you have bigger problems to worry about. Please stop letting your rampant love of Nadal get in the way of logical thinking. He may not realise his idea would be unfair, but 100%, without doubt, it is. It's a fact. The best you can say for Nadal is he hasn't thought it through.

Do you think nadal should be number 1 right now with 1 slam, 1 masters, over a guy who has won 3 slams and 5 masters? Should Nadal be ranked higher in the world right now? Because under the 2 year system Djokovic would have won 3 slams, 5 masters to Nadal 1 slam and 1 master, beating him 6-0 in finals and not for one day been ranked higher than him.

In case your Nadal love gets in the way again, do you think it's right that nadal would never have got to number 1 in 2008? Cos with the 2 year system Federer wouldn't have been overtaken. Do you think it's right Nadal would have never gotten to number 2 in 2005, probably not even the top 5?

I don't expect you to answer any of this, but perhaps other rampant Nadal lovers will think twice before actually trying to convince people this system is fair.

djokovicgonzalez2010
12-10-2011, 11:08 AM
Nadal has made himself very hated this year

gamesetmats
12-10-2011, 11:35 AM
For the lower ranked players who are trying to work their way up, missing a couple of months due to injury can have a massive negative effect on their ranking and being protected by being able to count some points from their previous year might make all the difference between playing Challengers or getting an opportunity on the big tour. So please, stop letting your rampant dislike of Rafa get in the way of logical thinking and realize that he's not worried about his own #1 or 2 ranking, he's thinking of all the players.

Hmm... if I'm not mistaken a player can use his pre-injury ranking to apply for the first couple of tournaments after the injury.

In golf they have a 2-year ranking with a coefficient so that the points earned 18 months ago count as 0.25 of their value, 12 months ago 0.5, 6 months ago 0.75 and so on... This system is very hard to follow for an average fan and the there are constant changes in top 10 because the most recent results count as whole and leads to sudden rises in rankings every week. This has lead to a situation where you don't have a "club of top 10" but top 50. I don't know would rafa&co want to use a system with a coefficient or not but the system in golf is definitely not worth of copying.

TheMusicLover
12-11-2011, 11:34 AM
It comes from Nadal playing too much golf :)

:D

Actually you are the one that's not using logic here. Your only logic is: "If rafito says it then it must be good". Mustard is very positive about Nadal always, and he disagrees with this idea and has posted his arguments before your post and it's pretty much what most people think here. It's not about hate.

A perfect illustration of the difference between being a 'fan' and being a full-blown '****'. There is no need to agree with everything your favourite player comes up with, unless you've got your head stuck in said player's behind.

Crisstti
12-11-2011, 01:06 PM
There must be some reasoning for the two year ranking system. I wish Rafa would explain it... why hasn't anyone asked him about it in interviews?.

What is even exactly the system that's being proposed?. Would the points from the year before and from the current year count equally (was that how it worked years ago...?), or would it work like the golf rankings?.

Anyway, I'm not sure why the system would be any more perjudicial to lower ranked players working their way up, especially if the points from the year before count only as a certain percentage. They would probably go up in the rankings somewhat slower, and if they'd get injured, they'd get the same benefits from the two year system than any better ranked player would...

I'm not saying I favour the idea, by the way, but I'd like to hear what's the case for it.

As far as comparing the year end rankings, isn't that already difficult because there was a two year ranking system before? (though I could be completely wrong about this).

I wonder if Rafa and Fed had some kind of argument over this... all of that about them having talked about it, and Fed's comments afterwards which really seemed intended to make Rafa look bad...

BTW, I don't see how Rafa would be much favoured by it. He is NOT N 1 now, and if he has any intention to get it back (and I'd guess he does) then it cannot be helpful to him right now...

cc0509
12-11-2011, 11:33 PM
Actually you are the one that's not using logic here. Your only logic is: "If rafito says it then it must be good". Mustard is very positive about Nadal always, and he disagrees with this idea and has posted his arguments before your post and it's pretty much what most people think here. It's not about hate.

Bingo. You hit the nail on the head. Mustard is a reasonable Nadal fan with a brain in his head; other fans have their heads so far up Nadal's ***** they can't see straight and just blindly agree with whatever he says, no matter how dumb the idea is. Pathetic.

This one is a no brainer and going to a two year ranking system is just a plain bad idea.

1970CRBase
12-11-2011, 11:38 PM
Well, Fed is not kicking away the ladder after he's climbed up it. So to speak. At least, he is making an appearance of it. However of itself, the suggestion I suspect is probably another divisive tactic hoping to split the top players and use self interest as a bait. :)

merlinpinpin
12-12-2011, 12:56 AM
BTW, I don't see how Rafa would be much favoured by it. He is NOT N 1 now, and if he has any intention to get it back (and I'd guess he does) then it cannot be helpful to him right now...

That's the point. Using a 2-year system with full points for the full 24 months, he would still be n1 and would not have been overtaken by Djokovic, which would be totally stupid. :evil:

Crisstti
12-12-2011, 04:38 AM
That's the point. Using a 2-year system with full points for the full 24 months, he would still be n1 and would not have been overtaken by Djokovic, which would be totally stupid. :evil:

First, I don't think that's what's being proposed. Given Fed's comments about the golf rankings, the system proposed appears to be something similar to that.

Second, if Rafa would be proposing this out of self interest, as people are claiming here, then he would have stopped proposing it after he lost the N 1, wouldn't he?. It could not help him now, quite the opposite.

TMF
12-18-2011, 06:46 PM
The 2 years ranking system would've kept Nadal at #1 as of now.

Nadal,Rafael 22045
Djokovic,Novak 19870
Federer,Roger 17315
Murray,Andy 13140
Ferrer,David 8660
Soderling,Robin 7700
Berdych,Tomas 7655
Tsonga,Jo-Wilfried 6680
Roddick,Andy 5605
Fish,Mardy 4956
Verdasco,Fernando 4790
Almagro,Nicolas 4540
Monfils,Gael 4470
Cilic,Marin 3965
Isner,John 3650
Wawrinka,Stanislas 3575
Ljubicic,Ivan 3235
Gasquet,Richard 3150
Troicki,Viktor 3085
Lopez,Feliciano 3055

It makes no sense for Novak ending the year at #2 after having one of the best season in history.

TMF
12-18-2011, 06:54 PM
Federer who is the president of the ATP Players' Council disagree with Nadal(vice president) in having a 2 years system.

http://www.tennis.com/articles/templates/news.aspx?articleid=15421&zoneid=25

Nadal's main reason for the 2 years is to protect the injury players. Obviously, he's an injury prone so it serves him well. But funny he doesn't want to reward for the consistent, healthy players throughout the entire year.

FlashFlare11
12-18-2011, 08:08 PM
Federer who is the president of the ATP Players' Council disagree with Nadal(vice president) in having a 2 years system.

http://www.tennis.com/articles/templates/news.aspx?articleid=15421&zoneid=25

Nadal's main reason for the 2 years is to protect the injury players. Obviously, he's an injury prone so it serves him well. But funny he doesn't want to reward for the consistent, healthy players throughout the entire year.

Thanks for those stats and article!

Nadal said that he isn't the only one who supports the idea of a 2-year ranking. I wonder if we'll hear of some more players who support this idea as well in the near future.

Talker
12-19-2011, 08:52 PM
The year end #1 would really be the two year #1 and wouldn't be comparable to the past winners.
Then the WTF qualification would have some problems.

Why's Nadal so concerned about it?
If he wants to take a break he can, if you lose some ranking points so be it.

Fed handled it for years, it's good this way and separates those who can't handle being at near best for the whole year.

purge
12-19-2011, 09:22 PM
Fed handled it for years, it's good this way and separates those who can't handle being at near best for the whole year.
1-year ranking

seperates the men from the boys..

FlashFlare11
12-19-2011, 09:44 PM
The year end #1 would really be the two year #1 and wouldn't be comparable to the past winners.
Then the WTF qualification would have some problems.

Why's Nadal so concerned about it?
If he wants to take a break he can, if you lose some ranking points so be it.

Fed handled it for years, it's good this way and separates those who can't handle being at near best for the whole year.

Not just Federer, but every player since the start of the Open Era.

But I think that as long as surfaces are slowed down and baseline exchanges dominate every fascet of the sport, there will always be a call for this type of modification.