2-year Ranking still on the table?

Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by FlashFlare11, Dec 4, 2011.

  1. FlashFlare11

    FlashFlare11 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2011
    Messages:
    2,328
    Location:
    Philadelphia, United States
    #1
  2. Towser83

    Towser83 Legend

    Joined:
    May 17, 2011
    Messages:
    9,496
    Very bad idea. I will be disgusted if this change is adopted.
     
    #2
  3. AM95

    AM95 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2009
    Messages:
    3,245
    horrible idea. would virtually depreciate the value of being world #1.
     
    #3
  4. FlashFlare11

    FlashFlare11 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2011
    Messages:
    2,328
    Location:
    Philadelphia, United States
    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.
     
    #4
  5. aprilfool

    aprilfool Guest

    Bad idea.....
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 4, 2011
    #5
  6. OddJack

    OddJack Legend

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2009
    Messages:
    9,606
    Location:
    South
    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
    .
    .
    .
     
    Last edited: Dec 4, 2011
    #6
  7. Mustard

    Mustard Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2009
    Messages:
    25,114
    Location:
    Cwmbran, Wales
    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.
     
    #7
  8. SirGounder

    SirGounder Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2009
    Messages:
    1,757
    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.
     
    #8
  9. DragonBlaze

    DragonBlaze Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2008
    Messages:
    3,654
    Indeed, here is the full quote.

    http://www.goroger.net/interview/2011/masters111124rrfish.php
     
    Last edited: Dec 4, 2011
    #9
  10. FlashFlare11

    FlashFlare11 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2011
    Messages:
    2,328
    Location:
    Philadelphia, United States
    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?
     
    #10
  11. MichaelNadal

    MichaelNadal Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2007
    Messages:
    29,671
    Location:
    In the middle of tomorrow and yesterday..
    What Federer said about it is spot on, it's just not appropriate.
     
    #11
  12. purge

    purge Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2011
    Messages:
    2,446
    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
     
    #12
  13. OddJack

    OddJack Legend

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2009
    Messages:
    9,606
    Location:
    South
    It's now has gone under the table.
     
    #13
  14. namelessone

    namelessone Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2009
    Messages:
    9,745
    #14
  15. Towser83

    Towser83 Legend

    Joined:
    May 17, 2011
    Messages:
    9,496
    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.
     
    #15
  16. marcub

    marcub Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2010
    Messages:
    531


    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.
     
    #16
  17. Towser83

    Towser83 Legend

    Joined:
    May 17, 2011
    Messages:
    9,496
    how nasty of him to stick up for Rafa!
     
    #17
  18. Mustard

    Mustard Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2009
    Messages:
    25,114
    Location:
    Cwmbran, Wales
    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.
     
    Last edited: Dec 5, 2011
    #18
  19. Monsieur_DeLarge

    Monsieur_DeLarge Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    May 31, 2009
    Messages:
    492
    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
     
    #19
  20. TheMusicLover

    TheMusicLover Legend

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2009
    Messages:
    7,916
    Location:
    Nexus Polaris
    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.
     
    #20
  21. Towser83

    Towser83 Legend

    Joined:
    May 17, 2011
    Messages:
    9,496
    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.
     
    #21
  22. FlashFlare11

    FlashFlare11 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2011
    Messages:
    2,328
    Location:
    Philadelphia, United States
    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?
     
    #22
  23. Mustard

    Mustard Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2009
    Messages:
    25,114
    Location:
    Cwmbran, Wales
    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.
     
    Last edited: Dec 5, 2011
    #23
  24. _maxi

    _maxi Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2008
    Messages:
    851
    Location:
    Nalbaland
    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.
     
    #24
  25. InspectorRacquet

    InspectorRacquet Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2011
    Messages:
    427
    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.
     
    #25
  26. Mustard

    Mustard Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2009
    Messages:
    25,114
    Location:
    Cwmbran, Wales
    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.
     
    #26
  27. beast of mallorca

    beast of mallorca Legend

    Joined:
    May 19, 2010
    Messages:
    7,780
    It's never gonna happen. At least not in our lifetime.
     
    #27
  28. Mustard

    Mustard Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2009
    Messages:
    25,114
    Location:
    Cwmbran, Wales
    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.
     
    #28
  29. Towser83

    Towser83 Legend

    Joined:
    May 17, 2011
    Messages:
    9,496
    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.
     
    Last edited: Dec 5, 2011
    #29
  30. purge

    purge Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2011
    Messages:
    2,446
    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
     
    #30
  31. Fate Archer

    Fate Archer Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    May 14, 2009
    Messages:
    3,669
    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.
     
    #31
  32. DMan

    DMan Professional

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2007
    Messages:
    922
    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
     
    #32
  33. Benhur

    Benhur Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2007
    Messages:
    2,562
    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.
     
    #33
  34. Towser83

    Towser83 Legend

    Joined:
    May 17, 2011
    Messages:
    9,496
    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.
     
    #34
  35. akv89

    akv89 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2007
    Messages:
    1,587
    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.
     
    #35
  36. Devilito

    Devilito Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2009
    Messages:
    4,263
    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”
     
    #36
  37. TheMusicLover

    TheMusicLover Legend

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2009
    Messages:
    7,916
    Location:
    Nexus Polaris
    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.
     
    #37
  38. dh003i

    dh003i Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2006
    Messages:
    5,114
    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.
     
    #38
  39. vernonbc

    vernonbc Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2009
    Messages:
    2,859
    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.
     
    #39
  40. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,239
    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.
     
    #40
  41. namelessone

    namelessone Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2009
    Messages:
    9,745
    It comes from Nadal playing too much golf :)
     
    #41
  42. Mustard

    Mustard Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2009
    Messages:
    25,114
    Location:
    Cwmbran, Wales
    I agree with Rafa on many things, but strongly disagree with him on this rankings matter.

    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.

    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.

    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.
     
    Last edited: Dec 7, 2011
    #42
  43. akv89

    akv89 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2007
    Messages:
    1,587
    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.
     
    #43
  44. dh003i

    dh003i Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2006
    Messages:
    5,114
    Nadal is the only player who favors it that we've heard about.

    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.

    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.
     
    #44
  45. Benhur

    Benhur Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2007
    Messages:
    2,562
    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.
     
    #45
  46. vive le beau jeu !

    vive le beau jeu ! G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2006
    Messages:
    11,463
    Location:
    Ometepe, Pink Granite, Queyras, Kerguelen (...)
    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...


    (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:

    end of discussion.

    the tennis cycle is a yearly cycle... and so has to be the ranking system !
    let's keep it logical, please.
    :)
    (but shhh... don't talk about taxes in front of the nadal)
     
    #46
  47. _maxi

    _maxi Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2008
    Messages:
    851
    Location:
    Nalbaland
    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.
     
    #47
  48. _maxi

    _maxi Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2008
    Messages:
    851
    Location:
    Nalbaland
    No more discussion here? I hate to see my post as the last.
     
    #48
  49. Mustard

    Mustard Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2009
    Messages:
    25,114
    Location:
    Cwmbran, Wales
    What more can be said? The idea seems very unpopular and I hope it's never adopted.
     
    #49
  50. DMan

    DMan Professional

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2007
    Messages:
    922
    You fail to see the point of a 2 year ranking system? Well, who is the ONLY one advocating for it?

    ANSWER: *******, Na-dumbski

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

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

    Without a brain, it's easy to see how Uncle Toni just poured the idea right into the ******* 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!
     
    #50

Share This Page