PDA

View Full Version : ATP Rankings Update:


Andres
05-21-2006, 07:29 PM
INDESIT ATP Rankings, Top 50 As of Monday May 22nd ;)

Robredo up to #7, Stepanek to #11 and Ancic to #12.
Ferrer is #15 now, Coria is #22, Acasuso is #29 and Verdasco is #31.

:mrgreen:

wyutani
05-21-2006, 07:31 PM
and safin?

Andres
05-21-2006, 07:32 PM
Safin is #52, behind Ivo Karlovic, and above Horna and Bracciali ;)

superman1
05-21-2006, 08:28 PM
Totally screwed up. Ancic doesn't impress me at all. And when Stepanek is about to crack the top 10, you know something is off.

I'm sure Sampras wishes he hadn't retired.

pero
05-22-2006, 11:45 AM
Totally screwed up. Ancic doesn't impress me at all. And when Stepanek is about to crack the top 10, you know something is off.

I'm sure Sampras wishes he hadn't retired.

lol

but unfortunately there's a lot of truth in this one

Dunlopkid
05-22-2006, 11:53 AM
lol

but unfortunately there's a lot of truth in this one


beat me to it...:p

prestige18
05-22-2006, 03:06 PM
Totally screwed up. Ancic doesn't impress me at all. And when Stepanek is about to crack the top 10, you know something is off.

I'm sure Sampras wishes he hadn't retired.

ancic is my favourite player, he might be able to take federer at wimbledon,


in my dreams...

hummer23
05-22-2006, 03:09 PM
its wacky to be sure, should be interesting to see how the players and these new guys up at the top proform in the remaining slams. They will have high seeds so we are talking a lot of upsets early . . .

Andres
05-22-2006, 09:51 PM
ancic is my favourite player, he might be able to take federer at wimbledon,


in my dreams...
Hey! As far as I know, Ancic was the last person to beat Federer in grass.
I still think he has a chance :mrgreen:

pero
05-22-2006, 10:27 PM
Hey! As far as I know, Ancic was the last person to beat Federer in grass.
I still think he has a chance :mrgreen:

hope is strong in this one, as yoda would say

but i would be happy if that happens

David L
05-22-2006, 10:53 PM
Totally screwed up. Ancic doesn't impress me at all. And when Stepanek is about to crack the top 10, you know something is off.

I'm sure Sampras wishes he hadn't retired.

It has always been the case that borderline 'mediocre' players can get into the top 20 and even top 10. Let's not forget that Brad Gilbert got to No.4 and beat Sampras 4 times out of their 9 meetings.

travlerajm
05-22-2006, 10:57 PM
It has always been the case that borderline 'mediocre' players can get into the top 20 and even top 10. Let's not forget that Brad Gilbert got to No.4 and beat Sampras 4 times out of their 9 meetings.

Gilbert owned Becker too - had a winning record against him.

David L
05-22-2006, 11:05 PM
Gilbert owned Becker too - had a winning record against him.

Not quite, but I know what you mean. The head to head is 4-6 in Becker's favour.

andyroddick's mojo
05-22-2006, 11:39 PM
I like ancic's style. It's similar to mine, loopy forehand, and 2 HBH, and plus he's sponsored by nike, a company i wish to be sponsored by if given the chance :)

VamosRafa
05-22-2006, 11:50 PM
But when you have basically two guys dominating the tour for nearly a year, it does skew stats.

VamosRafa
05-22-2006, 11:50 PM
Hey! As far as I know, Ancic was the last person to beat Federer in grass.
I still think he has a chance

hope is strong in this one, as yoda would say

but i would be happy if that happens

And a year later Nadal beat Ancic on grass. So go figure. ;-)

fastdunn
05-23-2006, 12:06 AM
I hoped to see Ancic play Federer in Serve and Volley style
at Wimbledon. Alas! he switched to baseliner style even
in WImbledon !

Ivanišević
05-23-2006, 05:04 AM
"And a year later Nadal beat Ancic on grass. So go figure. "

so what? next round srichaphan defeated nadal...

Moose Malloy
05-23-2006, 09:11 AM
It has always been the case that borderline 'mediocre' players can get into the top 20 and even top 10. Let's not forget that Brad Gilbert got to No.4 and beat Sampras 4 times out of their 9 meetings.

Gilbert is a hell of a lot better than Stepanek. He won 20 titles to Stepanek's 1. And he's beaten many top players, unlike Stepanek(though 2 of those Sampras wins were when Sampras was 16/17)

I understand your point but you could've picked better examples. Like Novak or Schuettler. Or Davydenko.

jhhachamp
05-23-2006, 09:19 AM
Gilbert is a hell of a lot better than Stepanek.

That is why Gilbert made it to number 4 and Stephanek has only made it to number 11. For Stephanek to make it to number 4 he would have to improve a lot.

chess9
05-23-2006, 09:20 AM
ancic is my favourite player, he might be able to take federer at wimbledon,


in my dreams...

Ancic isn't my favorite player (Srichipan), but he's one helluva' a kid. He's got great movement for a big guy-comparable to Luby. I see him making top 10 and justifiably so. He's even done well on clay!

By the way, none of these guys are "mediocre" players. Give me a break.... Who's talkin'? McEnroe? :) I don't care for Stepanek, but he is a very good athlete. He just needs plastic surgery and a personality implant.

-Robert

-

Chadwixx
05-23-2006, 11:09 AM
Gilbert is a hell of a lot better than Stepanek.

Are you blind? Gilbert wouldnt even be top1000 in todays game. How can you say he is better let alone alot better?

Gilbert getting to #4 shows how weak the field was back then.

Freedom
05-23-2006, 11:13 AM
Gilbert getting to #4 shows how weak the field was back then.

How's that? Brad Gilbert is one of, maybe the, smartest tennis player ever. He studied his opponents, and went into the match with a plan. He may not have been supremely talented like Federer, but he knew what angles to exploit to win his matches. And he did that. Very, very well.

David L
05-23-2006, 11:22 AM
By the way, none of these guys are "mediocre" players. Give me a break.... Who's talkin'? McEnroe? :) I don't care for Stepanek, but he is a very good athlete. He just needs plastic surgery and a personality implant.

-Robert

-


That's why I put mediocre in inverted commas.

David L
05-23-2006, 11:26 AM
How's that? Brad Gilbert is one of, maybe the, smartest tennis player ever. He studied his opponents, and went into the match with a plan. He may not have been supremely talented like Federer, but he knew what angles to exploit to win his matches. And he did that. Very, very well.

I think Stepanek has more tennis ability, but maybe not as good a strategic mind as Gilbert.

Ripper
05-23-2006, 11:31 AM
I don't care for Stepanek, but he is a very good athlete. He just needs plastic surgery and a personality implant.

For some reason, mixing the word "Stepanek" with the words "plastic surgery" and "implant", made me think of this wierdo:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/56/Marilyn_Manson.jpg

Moose Malloy
05-23-2006, 11:58 AM
Are you blind? Gilbert wouldnt even be top1000 in todays game. How can you say he is better let alone alot better?

Gilbert getting to #4 shows how weak the field was back then.

So do you think Davydenko & Stepanek are two truly great, talented players who would be top 10 in any era, with any racquet? I'm talking about career accomplishments, nothing else. Check how often Gilbert beat top 5 players over his career & how often Davydenko/Stepanek have. And who won more titles.
There were 6 HOF players in the year end top 10 in '89. You had to face guys like Becker, Edberg, Lendl on a regular basis in '89. Making the top 5 then sounds pretty tough.
I wouldn't bet on Davydenko, Blake, Robredo, Gonzalez & co. making the HOF.

Your arguments are strange with comparing eras. If Nadal of today had to play McEnroe of 1981 with a wood racquet he would be destroyed.
many factors are involved with how a pro tennis player plays. much of it is predicated on what equipment you grew up with, the strings, technology changes, etc.

By your reasoning, everyone in the top 1000 is better than Laver or Borg also, which is a pretty absurd thing to say.

I saw Gilbert hit with Agassi around '99. Agassi was absolutely crushing the ball, harder than he's ever hit in a match, & Gilbert could handle it. A top 10 pro is a top 10 pro. We're not talking about 4.5 players, you know. And the talent pool was even deeper in the 70s/80s. More Americans were playing tennis in those decades than at any other time in history. It was harder for an American to make it to the pros then compared to today since there was so much more competition within the US at all levels. Today, tennis in america is played by very few, & by much lesser athletes. back then you had people who were playing all sports playing the game.

Chadwixx
05-23-2006, 04:06 PM
So do you think Davydenko & Stepanek are two truly great, talented players who would be top 10 in any era, with any racquet? I'm talking about career accomplishments, nothing else.

Im talking about who is the better player if they were to play each other as what they were/are. Its not really worth debating accomplishments because there isnt much to debate, just look at the scoreboard and that settles it.

By the great accomplishment arguement laver is the greatest. Not only did he win the gs twice, but he was also the champion at my club from 67-69 :)

I think gilbert would be destroyed by the way the players are playing to game today. Lendl played a similar style to what the players of today are playing. He destroyed gilbert, gilbert even stated this in his book.

Max G.
05-23-2006, 04:54 PM
Im talking about who is the better player if they were to play each other as what they were/are. Its not really worth debating accomplishments because there isnt much to debate, just look at the scoreboard and that settles it.

By the great accomplishment arguement laver is the greatest. Not only did he win the gs twice, but he was also the champion at my club from 67-69 :)

I think gilbert would be destroyed by the way the players are playing to game today. Lendl played a similar style to what the players of today are playing. He destroyed gilbert, gilbert even stated this in his book.

Heh.

It's interesting, because that's exactly the opposite of how I tend to compare players across generations.

I tend to think that trying to conjure up "who would win if they played" is an unanswerable question when comparing across generations. The rules and equipment of tennis have recently been in almost constant flux - when "who would win" would in almost all cases, IMO, depend on "what era would they play in." If you took Federer and plunked him down in the 60s, with wooden racquets and slick grass courts (or clay, but not really very many hardcourts) he'd get beaten by the top players of the era, since they're adapted to the way the game is played and he's not; likewise, if you took someone who played in the 60s and magically teleport them, in their physical prime, to the 00s, then they'd get thumped as well.

Of course, maybe I'm wrong. But there's really no way to tell.

Which is why I tend to fall back to comparing players based on accomplishments. A Grand Slam win is a Grand Slam win. Every player tries his best to adapt to the conditions he's given and to win with what's available, and seeing how well they did that (i.e. how much they won) seems to me to be the most objective measure to compare players by.

(Not that that's too great of a measure either, since priorities change - for a while everyone skipped the Australian Open, so comparing Grand Slam numbers isn't really unbiased either... but IMO it works perfectly well for lesser players like Gilbert, who weren't going to be winning the Australian anyway)


To each his own, I suppose. I suppose this is why debates about "who's the greatest" will never end, because everyone has their own criteria for judging things ;)

superman1
05-23-2006, 08:56 PM
You just can't compare eras. There's always something extra to take into account. You say Gilbert would get crushed by the style of players today...but what if he grew up with the players of today? Wouldn't he be used to that style?

The fact that he's one of the most famous tennis coaches out there, has many big wins over top players, has written books, does commentary, pretty much seals the fact that he's better than, what's his name, the dude dating Martina Hingis.

VamosRafa
05-23-2006, 09:40 PM
"And a year later Nadal beat Ancic on grass. So go figure. "

so what? next round srichaphan defeated nadal...

Actually I think, off the top of my head, Rafa beat Lee Childs in the next round, and then Paradorn beat him. Again, Rafa was just 17 at the time, and I was just starting out the site, but that's my recollection.

So Rafa got to the third round then. And he hadn't played any clay coming into it. And those were basically his first matches on grass, except for the Wimbly juniors he played a couple years before.

So who knows, with the right draw, he could get in a round or two, you think???

Ivanišević
05-24-2006, 12:40 AM
Actually I think, off the top of my head, Rafa beat Lee Childs in the next round, and then Paradorn beat him. Again, Rafa was just 17 at the time, and I was just starting out the site, but that's my recollection.

So Rafa got to the third round then. And he hadn't played any clay coming into it. And those were basically his first matches on grass, except for the Wimbly juniors he played a couple years before.

So who knows, with the right draw, he could get in a round or two, you think???
don't get me wrong.. i love rafael and i'm a big fan.. i wish that he beat roger everytime they meet because he's a great potential and a great fighter..
but, mario is croat and he's on top of favourites and i really belive that he can accomplish much on wimbledon1

fastdunn
05-24-2006, 09:39 AM
Stepanek is a lone serve-and-volleyer. Its rarity can benefit him for his
good performance racently.

arosen
05-24-2006, 08:09 PM
I hoped to see Ancic play Federer in Serve and Volley style
at Wimbledon. Alas! he switched to baseliner style even
in WImbledon !

No surprise here, they turned the courts at Wimby into some kind of slow-mo cow pasture that slows down the ball clay-style. You go in, you get passed, that simple. Poor Henman, his best results last year came on clay!