When will Tipsarevic exit top 10?

[Phonco]

Originally Posted by Bryan Swartz

I'll bite. Who should be ranked higher than him that isn't? And why?

Only one I can think of is probably Gasquet. One spot lower, more wins, more titles, has 2-0 head to head, and I think he has more wins against the top ten than Tipsarevic.

[DunlopDood]

Pretty soon I think, with guys like Raonic, Nishikori getting better and better, i think I'll give him till wimbledon

[Mainad]

Originally Posted by LeeD

That "small" guy is one inch shorter than AndyMurray and an inch taller than Nadal and Federer.

I don't think so. According to the ATP profiles, he's 5' 11", Murray is 6' 3", Nadal and Federer are both 6' 1".

[uncooling]

Originally Posted by Bryan Swartz

I'll bite. Who should be ranked higher than him that isn't? And why?

tons of players actually.

Wawrinka, Raonic, Nishikori, Gasquet, Almagro, Verdasco, Fish, Querry, Janowicz, and even Gulbis I think has more potential than Tipsarevic.

Based on his potential, I would put him a top 30-50 at best considering how competitive tennis is now. He just got some luck in Toronto where almost all top players withdrew, and Madrid which was a blue clay (no explanation needed).

Also, the courts got much much slower and players like Tipsarevic and Simon just took benefit from it.

Tell me which part you don't agree with

[Rob31]

Originally Posted by uncooling

tons of players actually.

Wawrinka, Raonic, Nishikori, Gasquet, Almagro, Verdasco, Fish, Querry, Janowicz, and even Gulbis I think has more potential than Tipsarevic.

Based on his potential, I would put him a top 30-50 at best considering how competitive tennis is now. He just got some luck in Toronto where almost all top players withdrew, and Madrid which was a blue clay (no explanation needed).

Also, the courts got much much slower and players like Tipsarevic and Simon just took benefit from it.

Tell me which part you don't agree with

Why are you talking about Gilles Simon?
He's a better player than Tipsarevic, leads the H2H 6-2 and was number 6 in 2009...

[Relinquis]

So only a handful more beat-downs and someone else will take his place as a seeded player at tournaments... Good.

[xan]

your list is hands down ********.

[Sabratha]

He's top ten for the rest of 2013.

[Beryl]

Tipsy used to be underraked all those years when he was in the 40s on the rankings. Janko has a great backhand, excellent shot making off both wings, good serve for his size, better than average movement. He's been out of form recently and sometimes he chokes, but he's really not that bad of a top tenner. Tipsy is really talented, I don;t see how you can tell me otherwise.

Originally Posted by uncooling

tons of players actually.

Wawrinka,

Inconsistent. Loses matches he should win far too often and rarely challenges the top guys either. He's in the same category as Tipsy and Gasquet: beats most players and looks impressive, but struggles beating the top 8.

Originally Posted by uncooling

Raonic,

All-serve mug.

Originally Posted by uncooling

Nishikori,

Injured too often.

Originally Posted by uncooling

Gasquet,

Maybe, but he's still in the same category as Tipsarevic. He can't beat the top players very often either. How many top 8 players has he beat recently?

Originally Posted by uncooling

Almagro,

Mediocre off clay, uber-level choker on all surfaces.

Originally Posted by uncooling

Verdasco,

lol, have you seen Verdasco play recently?

Originally Posted by uncooling

Fish,

Hasn't played on tour in ages. And even when he was, he wasn't beating the top 8 either.

Originally Posted by uncooling

Querry,

Robotic mug, just lost a match from being up a double break in the third. Doesn't have anywhere near the shot making ability of Tipsy.

Originally Posted by uncooling

Janowicz,

I support my countryman, but he has hardly proven his consistency to be at the top. His recent loss to Hanescu on an indoor hardcourt more than makes my point for me.

Originally Posted by uncooling

and even Gulbis I think has more potential than Tipsarevic.

More potential means nothing. Tipsy is a far better tennis player than Gulbis on most days. Hence the ranking difference.

[Roger Wawrinka]

I do like Tipsarevic and hope he will stay in the top 10, but if not I would like to see Almagro or Cilic. I know they are 11 and 12 so there not that far away, but hey that's just my opinion.

[Roger Wawrinka]

[quote=Beryl;7249415]
Mediocre off clay, uber-level choker on all surfaces.[quote]

do you really think almagro is medicore off clay?

[Beryl]

Originally Posted by Roger Wawrinka

do you really think almagro is medicore off clay?

Mediocre is a relative term here. He's a top 10 player on clay, but somewhere between 11-20 on hardcourts and something similar or worse on grass (hard to say with the lack of grass tournaments). The point is, I don't think he's better than guys like Gasquet, Wawrinka and Tipsarevic off clay.

[Bryan Swartz]

Originally Posted by uncooling

tons of players actually.

Wawrinka, Raonic, Nishikori, Gasquet, Almagro, Verdasco, Fish, Querry, Janowicz, and even Gulbis I think has more potential than Tipsarevic.

Based on his potential, I would put him a top 30-50 at best considering how competitive tennis is now. He just got some luck in Toronto where almost all top players withdrew, and Madrid which was a blue clay (no explanation needed).

Also, the courts got much much slower and players like Tipsarevic and Simon just took benefit from it.

Tell me which part you don't agree with

Pretty much all if it .

Based on his potential? How do you rank players on an unquantifiable basis like potential? Everybody has an opinion there, but IMO it's unquestionably better to rank players on achievement(if a player can achieve more, they should, and if they don't, it's their fault and we shouldn't up their ranking because they should have, but didn't, do something).

Courts are slower than they were 15 years ago, yes. It's the same for everybody, and everyone has to compete under the new environment. We don't rank players based on how they would have done in 1990(or whatever date you liked better). We need to rank them on what they achieve today.

That covers Madrid, as for Toronto -- almost all the top players? 7 of the Top 10 played. By what logic, precisely, does 'almost all' mean 30%? That includes Gasquet by the way, who made the final -- which means he was that much worse that Tipsarevic the rest of the year to still be ranked below him.

Having said that, let's look at the players you mentioned:

Tipsarevic: Slams(1 QF, 2 R16, 1 other); Masters(2 SF, 2 QF, 1 R16, 3 others); 500(2 QF); 250(2 W, F)

Wawrinka: Slams(3 R16, 1 other); Masters(1 SF, 1 QF, 4 R16, 3 others); 500(1 QF); 250(1 F, 1 SF, 1 QF)

Slightly worse at best in every single category. Just no. If he doesn't skip a couple of masters and plays another 500 or two, he'd have a chance, but Tipsarevic got deeper into Masters/Slams consistently.

Raonic: Slams(2 R16, 2 others); Masters(2 QF, 1 R16, 5 others); 500(1 F, 1 SF); 250(1 W, 2 QF)

Too inconsistent at the Slams and Masters. Same song, different verse.

Gasquet: Slams(4 R16); Masters(1 F, 1 QF, 2 R16, 4 others); 500(1 SF); 250(3 W, 1 F)

He's got the best argument, as he's the one guy actually in the ballpark(which is why he is less than 9% behind in points, just 245 pts). The big difference is he exited early at too many Masters. One could possibly make an argument for him being ranked higher, but it's very thin as when you can't make the round of 16 in half the masters you enter(and never progress past that mark once in a Slam either), saying you should be higher than #10 in the world is a pretty big stretch.

Nishikori: Slams(1 R16, 3 others); Masters(3 R16, 5 others); 500(2 W, 2 QF); 250(2 SF)

Been a Kei fan for years, love watching him play. This is irrelevant. He missed a Slam and didn't get past the third round of two others. He also missed a pair of Masters and didn't get far in most of the ones he entered. Sensing a pattern here? Inconsistency and injury. Done very solidly in the 500/250s, but needs to step it up in the big events on a regular basis. Hasn't done it yet.

Almagro: Slams(2 QF, 1 R16, 1 other); Masters(1 QF, 4 R16, 3 others); 500(2 SF, 1 QF); 250(1 W, 1 F).

Interesting case here. Slightly better in Slams, considerably worse in Masters. Less than 600 points behind, which he could get if he would be more consistent.

Not going to go through all of them in the sake of brevity(they're similar) except to LOL @ Gulbis. Rotterdam and Delray Beach(both in the last month -- good on him--) are the only events in the past year that he can claim to have won consecutive matches in other than Challengers. A guy who has to qualify for a 250 event should be ranked in the Top 10? Uh, wut??

So yeah, I respectfully disagree with pretty much everything you said.