Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by Lawn Tennis, Aug 1, 2012.
I saw an article stating Federer and Djokovic were in a race for number 1 here at the Olympics.
750 i think.
Fed only marginally ahead in the rankings too so I guess what you said adds up
750 points to the winner of the Olympic Singles. I don't know how much the runner-up gets but I would say it would be less that 680 points - hence the 75 points currently seperating Federer and Djokovic come into focus if they both make the final. The final therefore would be a match for number 1.
To put the Olympics in perspective at 750 points (Slams are 2000 points, unbeaten run at WTF is 1500 points and Masters 1000's are of course 1000 points).
Fourth place: 270
Djokovic needs to outscore Federer by more than 75 points to regain #1. Now that both of them are in the quarters, this can happen in any scenario where Djokovic reaches at least one round further than Federer. If however, Djokovic and Federer both lose in the semis and Djokovic beats Federer to win Bronze, Federer still holds the #1 ranking since the difference in points between bronze and 4th is 70 points.
Wow only 5 points seperating (in the Djokovic bronze, Federer 4th scenerio) . I wonder if the difference between the number 1 and number 2 ranking has ever been that close? For that matter, I wonder if the current 75 points is the closest it has ever been to date?
Yes this is very interesting. Thank you to those who answered the question.
No, the Olympics is replacing Doha in Federer's "Best of other countable tournaments" section, meaning those 90 points will drop from his total when the Olympics is over. Thus, Federer needs to outperform Djokovic by at least 15 points to maintain the number one ranking.
It appears to me that the 750 points is worth more than it seems, since they don't need to be defended.
No, that's not how it works.
A year from now, they'll have to defend the points, just like from any other tournament. It just so happens that it'll be impossible, they'll have to play a different tournament instead.
You sure? Give me an example.
Of what? It doesn't ****ing matter.
It's not that they don't need to be, they just can't be defended. The points from this Olympics will drop this time next year.
Exactly why I don't think it should be worth any points. It's not even an ATP even, why it has points I don't know. If you can't defend it next year whats the point?
Because it's a tournament where players compete? Which is the whole point of ranking. If you want ******** that's Davis Cup points.
It's not part of the main tour though, it should be treated seperately.
Neither are the slams.
Bingo! Yahtzee!!! We have a winner!!!
"Neither are the slams!"
Whooooo, can I say 'owned'?
Djokovic will get 750 points.
They aren't? . Damn, did not know that. Still think its silly as you can't defend the points but I care a little less now.
The Grand Slams are run by the ITF, not the ATP.
"Defending" points is a fiction; there's nothing in the rules about defending points, ever.
When you play a tournament, you get some amount of points for it; they stay on your record for exactly 52 weeks, at which time they drop off.
IF you happen to play another tournament exactly 52 weeks later, and get the exact same amount of points for it again, it looks like your total stayed the same; you lost the points from last year and gained the one from this year. People call this "Defending" points.
Of course, there's no particular reason why it has to be the SAME tournament. You can play a different tournament that happens to be at the same time and gives you the same amount of points.
And, there's not even any particular reason to play another tournament at the same week - if you play a tournament a week earlier instead, your ranking will be inflated for one week (when you have both last year's and this year's result on record) and then drop down again a week later.
And, vice versa, just because you play the same tournament again next year doesn't mean your points will stay the same. Tournaments can get promoted or demoted. Tournaments can move forward or back in time (which, ranking-wise, ends up being the same as if you didn't defend your points but then happened to play a different tournament at a different time).
Psychologically, I guess people like playing the same tournament again. But ranking-wise, 'defending' points is often a red herring.
Ah ok, good to know thanks (the ITF part).
Even so, the Olympics is an extra tournament in effect. I feel that the fact you can't 're-earn' those points next year means the players who earned points from it will have an inflated ranking etc...In the long run it doesn't make a difference. Personally I guess I just think the gold medal is prize enough...
Separate names with a comma.