i remembered that wimbledon based their rankings off of previous grass court results. but after looking at his previous wimbledon results (2003 - 1st round, 2004 - n/a, 2005 - 2nd round, 2006 - final) i was confused why he was ranked above roddick (2001 - 3rd round, 2002 - 3rd round, 2003 - semi's, 2004 - final, 2005 - final, 2006 - 3rd round), who had a much better wimbledon record. anyone know the reasoning to this? and i don't know how they did during non-wimbledon events since i can't find any info on them. but i'm assuming roddick would have the better results on those, too. then again i could just be talking out of my ass.