Rogers Ranking at the end of the year

[supertennis]

roger federer #1

[fastdunn]

Originally Posted by federerfanatic

I am betting Federer won't ever lose the #1 ranking for 3 full years. So again I am fine with the April date I pointed out before, or holding the #1 ranking still, without having ever lost it, at the start of 2010(or the absolute end of the season in 2009 as obviously rankings never change during the off season with no weeks of pro tennis played). Whichever one you prefer, absolute end of 2009/start of 2010 season, or that April date of 2010. I am meaning him never losing the #1 ranking for 3 years though, not just the year end #1.

OK. I'll take that bet. I'll cut 4 months off and let's do the end of 2009.

Roger's points look gigantic but note that this is now best of 18 system.
I'm thinking that it's very very hard to maintain #1 for long period time
under this system. Guys like Davydenko plays 30+ tournaments to maintain
his top 10 ranking. This is much more physically demanding ranking syetem.

ATP designed it to have more of top guys on all tournaments.
Federer and Nadal as well as most of top players are doing relatively well on all surfaces
(which are made to have more similar speed). It's all design to promote
tennis as more approachable to general public. However, it's going to
take more toll on top players physical conditions... I don't think we'll
have players like Sampras or Lendle who pretty much lasted over a decade
at the top...

[illkhiboy]

Originally Posted by fastdunn

OK. I'll take that bet. I'll cut 4 months off and let's do the end of 2009.

Roger's points look gigantic but note that this is now best of 18 system.
I'm thinking that it's very very hard to maintain #1 for long period time
under this system. Guys like Davydenko plays 30+ tournaments to maintain
his top 10 ranking. This is much more physically demanding ranking syetem.

ATP designed it to have more of top guys on all tournaments.
Federer and Nadal as well as most of top players are doing relatively well on all surfaces
(which are made to have more similar speed). It's all design to promote
tennis as more approachable to general public. However, it's going to
take more toll on top players physical conditions... I don't think we'll
have players like Sampras or Lendle who pretty much lasted over a decade
at the top...

Davydenko does not really benefit from playing 30-odd tournaments points-wise, it's more for financial gain. The best of 18 system only has room for 5 Int'l events, the other 13 are Masters/Grand Slams. Davydenko has performed well in GS & MS overtime to achieve his high ranking. He's also done well at the Masters Cup.

[Santoro071]

Federer = #1

[federerfanatic]

Originally Posted by fastdunn

OK. I'll take that bet. I'll cut 4 months off and let's do the end of 2009.

Roger's points look gigantic but note that this is now best of 18 system.
I'm thinking that it's very very hard to maintain #1 for long period time
under this system. Guys like Davydenko plays 30+ tournaments to maintain
his top 10 ranking. This is much more physically demanding ranking syetem.

ATP designed it to have more of top guys on all tournaments.
Federer and Nadal as well as most of top players are doing relatively well on all surfaces
(which are made to have more similar speed). It's all design to promote
tennis as more approachable to general public. However, it's going to
take more toll on top players physical conditions... I don't think we'll
have players like Sampras or Lendle who pretty much lasted over a decade
at the top...

Ok we are in in agreement then. Federer has to keep his #1, without ever losing it, until the 2009 season is over, until those 2009 year end rankings are finalized, for me to to win the $100 bet. If he loses it at any point before then you win the $100 bet. You were also generous to clip off a few months.

As for your points you could be right, your points are good, but I also see it differently from how you do. Keep in mind Federer has now gone 3 full seasons without somebody even coming close to taking the #1 ranking away from his, I cant remember the last time he did not have a 2000 points lead. Also the ranking system is best of 18 in a sense, but 18 tournaments does not mean you have to be a workhorse like Davydenko or Kafelnikov and play 30+. I pointed this out on another thread but there is a real misconception of Davydenkos' ranking last year. He earned the 3rd or 4th most ponts of any player in the 4 Grand slams and 9 Masters events combined, the biggest events for players. He posted alot of "quality results" to earn his ranking. He had alot of extra tournaments dropped from his ranking, they did not count, he did much at all from just playing 30+ events. I think the fact he is such a boring player and personality, who maybe took advantage of a weaker field last year, mislead people to how he earned his ranking.

Also the ranking system awards secure points for 13 events-the 4 grand slams, and 9 Masters Series, there is no getting away from having your results count in those events(a 0 if you dont play)so it still rewards quality over quantity IMO. As well the ATP is supposably planning to cut the Masters events down to 6 or 7, reducing the physical wear of the top players, and substaining a certain level over a longer period more doable.

I am not believing Federer will neccessarily remain as dominant as he is now, it could happen, but I feel far from sure of it. However my feeling is there is a such a huge gap from being as far ahead of the others as he is now, to not being ranked #1 anymore. Meaning it is possible for the field to close the gap an large amount, and his degree of dominance to be reduced a large amount, and to still be ranked #1. He is that far ahead of the others right now, as his constant 2000-4000 points lead reflects.

[federerfanatic]

By the way here is my post from earlier in the year how Davydenko earned his ranking, not through picking up points by playing so many events, but through "quailty" results in Grand Slams and Masters which earned him those many points:

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showp...4&postcount=75

[fastdunn]

Originally Posted by federerfanatic

I am not believing Federer will neccessarily remain as dominant as he is now, it could happen, but I feel far from sure of it. However my feeling is there is a such a huge gap from being as far ahead of the others as he is now, to not being ranked #1 anymore. Meaning it is possible for the field to close the gap an large amount, and his degree of dominance to be reduced a large amount, and to still be ranked #1. He is that far ahead of the others right now, as his constant 2000-4000 points lead reflects.

yeah, I thought about that. Federer being still come out as #1 despite less
dominating. But note that we had all of #1-#4 as semi-finalists at FO last
year and #1 and #2 at Wimbledon. I don't think this is a coincident or pure
luck. It has been predicted that top players will do relatively well on all surfaces.
If he starts to get challenged on hard court surfaces, he is not really
secure on grass.

3000-4000 point lead looks stpendously comfortable lead but
I don't think it's that secure as the points suggest.
Just like winning match score of 6-3, 6-3 looks like a comfortable win but
actually it could be tight one....

[fastdunn]

Originally Posted by federerfanatic

By the way here is my post from earlier in the year how Davydenko earned his ranking, not through picking up points by playing so many events, but through "quailty" results in Grand Slams and Masters which earned him those many points:

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showp...4&postcount=75

I don't know about last year. Currently he earned 36% of his points from
non-slam, non-masters events. That is highest among top 5.
From #6 to #10, they have 20%-40% of their points from these small tourney.
And he lost at 1st rounds of 4 Masters out
of 9 masters he played.

He does have quality gland slam points.

[roma]

Roger Federer # 1 2006,2007 and 2008

[federerfanatic]

Originally Posted by fastdunn

I don't know about last year. Currently he earned 36% of his points from
non-slam, non-masters events. That is highest among top 5.
From #6 to #10, they have 20%-40% of their points from these small tourney.
And he lost at 1st rounds of 4 Masters out
of 9 masters he played.

He does have quality gland slam points.

Even if he does earn alot of his point from smalller events, he does earn alot of points from Grand Slams and Masters too. You are right he does have some 1st round losses in Masters, but he has a Masters title from Paris counting to his ranking until atleast November, that is definitely a tremendous quality result. 1 Masters title alone, combined with 2 first match losses(100 points + 5 + 5 = 110 points) is worth only a smidgen less then 2 Masters semis and 1 Masters quarter(45 points + 45 + 25 = 115) for example.

I did not know for certain he has the highest % of his points among the top 5 coming from small tournaments. I would have pretty much known his % coming from small tournaments would be higher then Federer and Nadal, but everyones would be compared to them. How much higher a % of his points come from smaller tournaments compared to current #3 Roddick and current #5 Gonzalez. Is it a big % difference? Basically as World #4 it just means there is only 1 guy he is ranked above in the top 5, that guy by only 1 spot and an extremely small margin(80 points). So having the highest % of his point among the top 5, when he is almost at the bottom of the current top 5 anyway, coming from smaller tournaments, does not really show too much of an inflated ranking coming from playing alot of events IMHO.

Although you did say 20-40% from the current 6-10 ranked, so there are probably some from that group with less % of their points coming from smaller events, possibly by a more substantial margin.

However the best you can count for smaller tournaments is 5 tournaments, and no tournaments are worth more then 60 points(only 60% of any of the 9 Masters, 30% of any of the 4 Grand Slams)and very few worth then 50 points (only 50% of any of the 9 Masters, 25% of any of the 4 Grand Slams). So based on that I still mantain it would be hard to inflate your ranking that much just by playing alot IMO.

I cant believe I am going through so much effort to defend Davydenko though, LOL! I dont even like him at all, he is the most boring and drab player in the top 5, let alone briefly the top 3, I can remember for a long time. Well since Kafelnikov, but atleast Kafelnikov had his 2 grand slam titles as giving him some higher credence. I do think guys like Davydenko or Ljubicic spending time at #3 is not a great reflection on the mens game and am hoping that was short lived. However I do think Davydenko earned a high ranking through his quality of results, not just by playing alot of tournaments as alot of people seem to believe.

[federerfanatic]

Originally Posted by fastdunn

yeah, I thought about that. Federer being still come out as #1 despite less
dominating. But note that we had all of #1-#4 as semi-finalists at FO last
year and #1 and #2 at Wimbledon. I don't think this is a coincident or pure
luck. It has been predicted that top players will do relatively well on all surfaces.
If he starts to get challenged on hard court surfaces, he is not really
secure on grass.

3000-4000 point lead looks stpendously comfortable lead but
I don't think it's that secure as the points suggest.
Just like winning match score of 6-3, 6-3 looks like a comfortable win but
actually it could be tight one....

You are right that more and more all of the guys are playing to a certain level more similar on all surfaces now. It is not coincidence or pure luck, that is what is happening with the way the surfaces are and the more similar playing style of all the guys now. So yeah you are right if he starts to be challenged on hard courts, he will probably start to be challenged on grass.

However even if he is challenged on both hard courts and grass there are 3 grand slams between the two surfaces. Unless someone else is dominating the game(and unless Federer goes into a big decline, I have a hard time believing if the game is such a high level Federer is challenged on every surface, that another guy would be at the level to dominant that field)there is a good chance to stay #1 with only 1 slam title on your record, as there is a good chance nobody would be holding more then 1. I still believe even if he was being challenged on clay(where he is beyond being challenged, he is having a hard time ever beating Nadal so far), hard courts, and grass, he still likely would win atleast 1 slam per year out of the 3 of Australia, French, and U.S Open, assuming he would win not be winning the French, by that point particularly. I also believe it would be very hard for somebody else to be winning more then 1 slam in a 12 month span if the game really reaches that high of a level. I also believe there would still be a good shot of Federer not only having won atleast 1 slam during any given 12 month period, even being challenged more on every surface, but that his overall record over that year would still be the best, better then other guys who 1 slam as well.

You are right a points lead or a score can be alot closer then the score of points suggest. However when the score or points lead is constant to that point, either the scores in matches between two players, or the points of rankings over time, it is probably very much as it appears then.

Basically though I think we understand how the other one feels, we just feel differently to what it will all come to in the end. We will just have to wait and see.

[fastdunn]

Originally Posted by federerfanatic

Although you did say 20-40% from the current 6-10 ranked, so there are probably some from that group with less % of their points coming from smaller events, possibly by a more substantial margin.

.

Lujbucic 40%
Blake 43%

I personally think they are on their way out (although they don't play as much as Davydenko).

Ok here is my quick calculation from ATP.com

#ranking - Name - % - #of Masters played.
#1 Federer – 14% - 7/9
#2 Nadal -- 10% - 7/9
#3 Roddick – 18% - 5/9
#4 Davydenko – 33% - 9/9
#5 Gonzales - 19% - 9/9
#6 Robredo - 24% - 9/9
#7 Djokovic – 33% - 8/9
#8 Ljubicic -- 40% 8/9
#9 Blake -- 43% 8/9
#10 Murray -- 31% 9/9

[fastdunn]

Originally Posted by federerfanatic

However even if he is challenged on both hard courts and grass there are 3 grand slams between the two surfaces. Unless someone else is dominating the game(and unless Federer goes into a big decline, I have a hard time believing if the game is such a high level Federer is challenged on every surface, that another guy would be at the level to dominant that field)there is a good chance to stay #1 with only 1 slam title on your record, as there is a good chance nobody would be holding more then 1. I still believe even if he was being challenged on clay(where he is beyond being challenged, he is having a hard time ever beating Nadal so far), hard courts, and grass, he still likely would win atleast 1 slam per year out of the 3 of Australia, French, and U.S Open, assuming he would win not be winning the French, by that point particularly. I also believe it would be very hard for somebody else to be winning more then 1 slam in a 12 month span if the game really reaches that high of a level. I also believe there would still be a good shot of Federer not only having won atleast 1 slam during any given 12 month period, even being challenged more on every surface, but that his overall record over that year would still be the best, better then other guys who 1 slam as well.
.

I understand that. That's certainly possible.

Federer or not, I think we now have much more chance to have
a player winning all 4 slams a year. The speed of all surfaces are
converging to the medium speed. 99% of players play same style.
Federer is such a special player but this homegeneous ATP tour
condition at least partially helped him win 3 slams a year.

If someone other than Federer/Nadal wins a slam, he becomes
strong favorite on all other slams. They all play on slow surfaces
and same style, why not ? Totally different from extremely
polarized condition in 90's. I'm sure we'll have a next top guy who
wins 2 or more slams a year and dominating the tour similar way
as Fed and Nadal does unless ATP condition changes.

OK, I understand your points and let's see how the game plays.
Maybe Federer turns out to be really really special guy... and
you'll get paid $100..

[Hops]

Originally Posted by federerfanatic

I did not know for certain he has the highest % of his points among the top 5 coming from small tournaments.

http://www.tennis28.com/funstuff/200...rankingsa.html


see question 10efg. This was for 2006, not updated thru KB 2007 or anything.

I asked the same question in some previous years, if you're interested.