How much do you read into the rankings?

[BallsforTennis]

Now before I start. I don't want this to be a question about the credibilty or accuracy of the ATP ranking system. I really don't. Infact, the ranking system for me is as fair as it can almost be. The fact is not every player performs consistently enough to achieve a ranking that many on here would suggest they should rank at when they see them perform at a high level. (When hot)

I notice a lot of people here read into the rankings of players as measurement of either ability/quality/standard/skill, what have you ... actually no a lot more than only read into it, they use it as some kind of "fixed" route for determining ability and believe everything should go by this pattern.

For me in many cases it is a misconeption what a player's ranking is. Often it goes beyond ability/talent/skill and involves matters such as professionalism, fitness, state of mind and consistency.

As an example:

Ferrer not long ago may have been on paper "ranked" as high as number 3 in the world, but would it be fair to say he arguably wasn't "performing" to a quality/standard/level as high as may be one or two of the player's that had ranked between 10-30 perhaps? Currently Ferrer stands at no7 and I could make the case that Alexander Dolgopolov is currently playing to a level much higher than Ferrer, yet we know where Dolgopolov is ranked. What does this say about their rankings? My point is Ferrer only achieves that ranking from consistency in match by match, tournament by tournament.

My question is do you really read much into a player's ranking? If so, explain why you do? Say a player beats a player with a high ranking, are you the type to immediately "assume" he is playing to the standard of what we are led to think a player in and around that ranking plays at? Are you the type that then thinks he can beat a player ranked a few places lower than the player he beat? Or do you acknowledge tennis is to do with matchups, form, fitness etc?

I am of the firm belief that a ranking is simply a mere indicator of a player's level and nothing precise.

 

[SpicyCurry1990]

Generally no for the reasons you indicated with Ferrer. The rankings are a 52 week snapshot of results and hence consistency plays arguably the biggest role in that picture.

I really don't put any value on player X upsetting player Y who was ranked Z to say he is playing at Z level. I also take into account the surface.

For example Ferrer is not the 7th best player in the world on grass, but he was seeded as so by Wimbledon because they only weight grass a little bit, but still predominantly use the ATP rankings to seed. Mayer beating him indicated in no way he was playing to the level of a top 7 player as not only did Ferrer play poorly, but he was also over ranked on grass.

In contrast when Wawrinka beat Nole, Berdych, Nadal at AO his level was clearly that of being the best in the world for that tournament.

You have to really watch the matches to get an indication of if an upset is a top ranked player playing below his level or of the lower ranked player playing up to that top ranked level.