precisely. it would be harder to get there than it is now, and it'd be easier to stay there than it is now. the top players don't nearly have to work as hard to stay atop the rankings while the lower ranked players would need to work even harder to climb up the rankings.
Yeah, I see your point, but even the high ranked players want to climb higher (it's the whole purpose of the whole thing) and it would be harder for them too. For everyone, except for the player currently Nº 1, and that player isn't Rafa.
Plus, while it'd be somewhat harder to climb up the rankings, it surely wouldn't be THAT much harder?. As I understand it, the points from the current season would still count for more. Thinking about what Fed said, about players having a break though tournament... when a player has a break though tournament, it's called a "breakthough" because it's the first time such player does so well, not the
only time. That tournament should be a reflection on the player's new found level, which he should keep and therefore climb up the rankings anyway.
People say players who suffer injuries are already protected, but didn't del Potro have to play Novak in the third round of a slam this year?. Rafa, with all the injuries he's had, has never had such a drastic fall in the rankings...
If anything, in any case, the lower ranked players would be even more perjudiced by getting seriously injured and falling in the rankings.
Bad timing I guess? He's been vocal about it in a year in which he got overtaken by Novak.
If he was saying that(and maybe he was, I honestly don't remember) in 2008 when he overtook Fed I guess people wouldn't be saying he was self serving/selfish even if they disagreed with it.
I think it would be more reasonable to suspect self serving intentions in the later case, since then he would be protecting his Nº 1 ranking, while now he would just make it harder for him get it back.
You misunderstand me. I'm saying that Nadal should recognise that it's supposed to be very hard to stay at the elite of the tennis world rankings, and that eventually, even the very best will fall down the rankings. The 2-year ranking would make it easier to stay at the top for longer, and that's wrong.
Well, it would make it easier... for a while. Eventually the rankings would reflect the player's level anyway.
I agree it's a negative aspect of it though. But it seems to me it's got also positives and that the issue deserves some serious discussion, not what's going on here.
