Sudacafan
Bionic Poster
By the way, isn’t there any Troll of the Year contest?
Fed fans: does Nadal deserve YE#1 in 2017?
- Thread starter falstaff78
- Start date
Polvorin
Professional
Not YET, anyway. Just wait until he gets the ATP to hold it on clay!
DRII
G.O.A.T.
i suggest you try and learn the distinction between being #1 vs best of all time vs most of all time.
thanks.
DRII
G.O.A.T.
i suggest you try and learn the distinction between being #1 vs best of all time vs most of all time.
thanks.
define reality...
the fact that anyone cosigned your post, which is factually completely wrong, should tell you and others something...
BlueClayGOAT
Semi-Pro
Okay, listen up y'all. Take these words of wisdom and heed them.
'Deserve' does not come into it.
Points are points and the tour is the tour.
You have to play and win enough matches to win enough points if you want to be #1.
You get the points, you become no.1. It's as simple as that.
'Deserve' does not come into it.
Points are points and the tour is the tour.
You have to play and win enough matches to win enough points if you want to be #1.
You get the points, you become no.1. It's as simple as that.
BlueClayGOAT
Semi-Pro
Okay, listen up y'all. Take these words of wisdom and heed them.
'Deserve' does not come into it.
Points are points and the tour is the tour.
You have to play and win enough matches to win enough points if you want to be #1.
You get the points, you become no.1. It's as simple as that.
'Deserve' does not come into it.
Points are points and the tour is the tour.
You have to play and win enough matches to win enough points if you want to be #1.
You get the points, you become no.1. It's as simple as that.
Federev
Legend
Absolutely he does.
Points are the basis and the math doesn't lie. Rafa's had a great year. He deserves #1 in points.
But Fed's been the better player.
At EVERY tournament all year when they have both entered Fed has outclassed Nadal (USO the lone exception).
YE#1 does not necessarily equal best player of the year. And this year is a great example.
Federev
Legend
Duplicate post error
Federev
Legend
Duplicate post error
Amm, that's not what I said at all.
I am saying this: Fed is playing to win titles. The current ranking system does not reward sufficiently for title wins.
If Fed wins the WTF, he would win 8/12. If Nadal skips, he would be 6/17...if he attends but doesn't win, he would be 6/18.
Fed would lead or equal Nadal in every important category including title wins, big title wins, wins over top 10 etc.
The ATP simply doesn't give enough importance to those metrics (slam wins, tournament wins, wins over top players) because it's all about $$$. A masters series finalist can walk away with more points than a GS semifinalist. $$$ again. Fed doesn't even bother to play half the masters series tournaments, so how the heck can someone get so many points for merely making a final?
The WTA is going through crisis right now because of this ranking system. A consistent second banana can get #1 by making enough finals and semifinals without actually winning anything! Didn't Halep win a grand total of 1 titles (!!!) to end up #1?
Ultimately, players play to win. Give more weight to actually winning a tournament. Players also still play for Grand Slams, which should have even more weight.
GS winner - 3000
GS finalist - 1000
Master winner - 1000
Masters finalist - 360
Multiplier of 0.5 for each previous round.
In this scheme, winning the tournament gets 3X points over the runner up. Grand slam wins are even more coveted.
It would be nice to see who the WTA #1 would have been under such a scheme.
Amm, that's not what I said at all.
I am saying this: Fed is playing to win titles. The current ranking system does not reward sufficiently for title wins.
If Fed wins the WTF, he would win 8/12. If Nadal skips, he would be 6/17...if he attends but doesn't win, he would be 6/18.
Fed would lead or equal Nadal in every important category including title wins, big title wins, wins over top 10 etc.
The ATP simply doesn't give enough importance to those metrics (slam wins, tournament wins, wins over top players) because it's all about $$$. A masters series finalist can walk away with more points than a GS semifinalist. $$$ again. Fed doesn't even bother to play half the masters series tournaments, so how the heck can someone get so many points for merely making a final?
The WTA is going through crisis right now because of this ranking system. A consistent second banana can get #1 by making enough finals and semifinals without actually winning anything! Didn't Halep win a grand total of 1 titles (!!!) to end up #1?
Ultimately, players play to win. Give more weight to actually winning a tournament. Players also still play for Grand Slams, which should have even more weight.
GS winner - 3000
GS finalist - 1000
Master winner - 1000
Masters finalist - 360
Multiplier of 0.5 for each previous round.
In this scheme, winning the tournament gets 3X points over the runner up. Grand slam wins are even more coveted.
It would be nice to see who the WTA #1 would have been under such a scheme.
Towser83
G.O.A.T.
I agree with giving more weight to winning titles but in this case Nadal has won almost as much as Federer, he just trails by one master and he's won 2 slams like Fed. WTF would make a significant difference but still not a massive one like a slam would. Almost equal on titles but Nadal has played and won more matches overall, number one has to go to Nadal.
Towser83
G.O.A.T.
I agree with giving more weight to winning titles but in this case Nadal has won almost as much as Federer, he just trails by one master and he's won 2 slams like Fed. WTF would make a significant difference but still not a massive one like a
Tennis_Hands
Banned
I will make it simple for you.
Count every tournament, where a player has not entered to play, as a first round loss.
And.
ATP rewards all the players with the same amount of points for every win they manage, depending on the round they play.
If Federer wanted to get more points he should have entered more tournaments.
The ultimate reward of winning titles is.... winning titles.
The points awarded should be for the effort required and not relative to how much a player is winning elsewhere.
Also, the current system is fair, as the loser receives 60 percent of the points of the winner, which is more than a substantial difference.
This year Nadal has been in one Major final more than Federer. That alone accounts for a huge chunk of the difference in points. It would be unfair, if that achievement is dwarfed by multiplying the points from, say a win in a ATP 500 tournament.
Last edited:
If Federer wins the WTF, he has a better year than Nadal:
*More important titles
*More single titles
*Higher winning percentage
*Undefeated against Nadal
YE #1 is supposedly the most dominating player on the tour but statistically Federer has the edge over Nadal, especially if he wins the WTF.
*More important titles
*More single titles
*Higher winning percentage
*Undefeated against Nadal
YE #1 is supposedly the most dominating player on the tour but statistically Federer has the edge over Nadal, especially if he wins the WTF.
Let me make it very simple so you don't have to waste words.
Great players play to *win tournaments*, not to make finals and semifinals.
No one cares how many finals you make. History books care about how many tournaments you win. In tennis, the grand slam wins are even more prestigious.
The current point system is not aligned to this. It is aligned to milk the most money by enticing the players to play so many tournaments. A grand slam winner is watered down when a masters series finalist walks away with 600 points.
A loser getting 60% points of the winner is *way way way too much*. Again, winning a tournament matters, the final, not so much. I don't know how many finals Federer has lost. I only know what he has won.
Finally - yes, Nadal won 2 slams, but as pointed out a million times, Federer would lead every significant category if he wins the WTF.
Tennis_Hands
Banned
I didn’t know that ATP or ITF are into publishing history books, but let me tell you something about the history books.
There are not only great battles during the history, neither are the losers in those vanquished from the history books.
Nadal's lead over Federer comes down to 3 Masters series final losses (as he accumulated 1800 points from those losses).
Those 3 losses almost make up one slam win. See what's happening here?
If Fed wins the WTF, he would win 8 tournaments to Nadal's 6. While they are tied at slams, Fed would take the next best title and would have a 3-2 edge at Masters titles.
Also, Fed beat how many top 10 players this year? Pity, it doesn't factor in the rankings. Nadal beat a bunch of nobody's at the USO. Contrast that to Fed's draw of death at the AO.
I agree it doesn't look bad because Nadal has 2 slams. Let's flip this argument and imagine: Suppose Nadal lost the USO final (-1000 points) but made up those points somewhere else (say by winning Cincinnati, or even better - making the Cincinnati final and winning 1 more 500 tournament). Nadal would still have the same total points, just 1 slam, still no WTF and not many wins over the top 10. Is he still your clear number 1?
Yet another example - do you believe Murray was the clear cut #1 last year after Djokovic schooled him at both AO and FO? Murray just racked up points by playing insane tennis at the year end (he did win the WTF but under my modified ranking scheme, Djokovic would have #1 locked away and Murray would possibly save his body by not overplaying to the extend he did).
My point is simple: The ranking system favors players playing too much and accumulate points from every little tournament that's out there. This is going to burn out the next gen. and when the quality of tennis plummets, ATP would be forced to reconsider things.
Polvorin
Professional
It isn't hard to see that one can hold the number one ranking without being the best player.
Just look at the WTA over the last 20~ years or so if you need an illustration. Or Roddick in 2003.
Nadal has earned the #1 ranking by getting the most points, this is a fact and it's not in dispute.
Just look at the WTA over the last 20~ years or so if you need an illustration. Or Roddick in 2003.
Nadal has earned the #1 ranking by getting the most points, this is a fact and it's not in dispute.
Last edited:
Polvorin
Professional
I did make a mistake which I acknowledged. The general point about the abundance of clay court matches allowing Nadal to go on such winning streaks however remains accurate, with the exception of 2013... a year in which most of us probably know Fed's game was at an all time low-- he was still playing with the 90" frame and attempted at one point to transition to the 97, but clearly lacked confidence.
For me, it's pretty simple. First, the rankings are the rankings. If Nadal has more points than Federer, he deserves year-end #1. Second, if I were ever considering deviating from the rankings, it would be based upon the player with fewer points performing better at the Majors. But that's not the case here: Both players have 2 Majors, and Nadal has F/W/4R/W (5,380 points) at Majors vs. W/DNP/W/QF (4,360 points) for Federer. So, Nadal has a 1,000+ point lead over Federer at the Majors.
For me, it's pretty simple. First, the rankings are the rankings. If Nadal has more points than Federer, he deserves year-end #1. Second, if I were ever considering deviating from the rankings, it would be based upon the player with fewer points performing better at the Majors. But that's not the case here: Both players have 2 Majors, and Nadal has F/W/4R/W (5,380 points) at Majors vs. W/DNP/W/QF (4,360 points) for Federer. So, Nadal has a 1,000+ point lead over Federer at the Majors.
Towser83
G.O.A.T.
Yeah we can say 3 masters final appearances almost adds up to a slam, but what if you made all 9 masters finals and the finals of all 4 slams and one guy one won slam and made the final of nothing else? Sure that win is the better result individually but you can't make the points value of everything else less than one slam win.
In reality Fed is not number one because he skipped a slam and 5 masters. That was his choice and he's happy to live with it. If he had have played maybe he could have won a few extra matches and been number one, maybe physically it would have cost him one of his titles.
IF Federer wins the WTF then the difference in titles is significant but not massive. Nadal not winning the US is hypothetical, it would make a difference in my mind but the rankings are the rankings.
Djokovic with 2 slams was sort of the better player but Murray did take number one in the winner takes all match at the WTF. In any case, that was rare. How many times has a player got to number one with less slams that year than the number 2? In this case Nadal has split the slams and has only one less master and won more matches, he's a deserving number one on what was played and not what could have and should have been played.
Johnnypeacock
Rookie
Nadal has been the years best player as reflected by the fact he is YE1.
In your hypothetical example:
Player A gets to all 9 Masters and slam finals. = 9400 points under current system.
A hypothetical player B even winning CYGS would not top that. Assume player B won all 4 slams and 1 Masters series tournament (obviously beating player A all 5 times). Player B still finishes #2 in rankings.
Under the scheme I laid out:
Player A gets 7240 points (360*9 + 1000*4).
Player B could win only 3 slams and still come out comfortably ahead (9000 points).
Ranking points are not set in stone. They are relative and their weight could be changed depending upon someone's preference. My preference: you play to win the tournament and more so; to win grand slams, so those wins have to be weighted much higher. Also, any win should be automatically worth 3X that of the finalist, and the factor should go down by 2X for every previous round exit.
C
Chadillac
Guest
Ranked #1, but Fed is the real #1. Give it to him for participation i guess
Similar threads
