How Nadal feels about a 2-year ranking system these days? Djokovic would...
- Thread starter 5555
- Start date
N
Nathaniel_Near
Guest
This is your best thread yet.
Indeed by that system Nole would be no.1 by over 3000 points, especially as both would play with absolutely no variance under an alternative system.......dotdotdot
Indeed by that system Nole would be no.1 by over 3000 points, especially as both would play with absolutely no variance under an alternative system.......dotdotdot
Facts:
2012 Masters Series: 3 Novak, 2 Nadal
2012 GS: 1 Novak, 1 Nadal, Each beats the other player
2012 ATP Finals: Novak Wins
2013 Masters Series: 1 Novak, 5 Nadal
2013 GS: 1 Novak, 2 Nadal. Nadal takes Novak out in SF of FO, beats him at USO
2013 ATP Finals: ?
Opinion:
Novak may be ahead in points, but I'd venture to say that Nadal's had a better overall 2 years, Novak better by 1 MS and 1 ATP Final in 2012. Nadal has a far better 2013 than Novak.
Overall, I would say that despite Nadal having less points, he's had a better 2 years. Unless being number #1 ranks above getting more titles and GSs.
BTW, ignored, anything more than 2 years older than 9/24/2011.
2012 Masters Series: 3 Novak, 2 Nadal
2012 GS: 1 Novak, 1 Nadal, Each beats the other player
2012 ATP Finals: Novak Wins
2013 Masters Series: 1 Novak, 5 Nadal
2013 GS: 1 Novak, 2 Nadal. Nadal takes Novak out in SF of FO, beats him at USO
2013 ATP Finals: ?
Opinion:
Novak may be ahead in points, but I'd venture to say that Nadal's had a better overall 2 years, Novak better by 1 MS and 1 ATP Final in 2012. Nadal has a far better 2013 than Novak.
Overall, I would say that despite Nadal having less points, he's had a better 2 years. Unless being number #1 ranks above getting more titles and GSs.
BTW, ignored, anything more than 2 years older than 9/24/2011.
Praetorian
Professional
Think you kinda missed the point. Everything you say is true, however, I'd venture a guess that the whole point of this thread, is that Nadal was the main, and really only advocate for a 2 year ranking system. Of course, Nadal only advocated this, more for selfish reasons than anything else; however, ironically, this would have only tainted Nadal's year end #1 ranking. I think there was a thread somewhere that showed he wouldn't have been #1 a couple years that he was, and certainly not the end of this year as well. Now before anyone takes a power pill and becomes the internet warrior version of a hulk, I personally think Nadal did have a better year than Djokovic, despite losing early in Wimby, and deserves the #1 at the end of the year.
dooknookem
Rookie
I don't really get the ranking system but I would start fresh every January 1st and possibly give each player a certain amount of points to start the season with based on where they finished the prior year for seeding purposes and then as the season progresses you get points for winning and you don't get points for not winning. Simple.
Seems to me the system is set up to exploit the players by making them play tournaments over and over to "defend" points therefore making money for the tournaments.
Seems to me the system is set up to exploit the players by making them play tournaments over and over to "defend" points therefore making money for the tournaments.
Backspin1183
Talk Tennis Guru
It would be funny if Djokovic remains the #1 for several months more whilst Nadal wins nearly every tournament he enters and beats Djokovic whenever they play each other. Djokovic then would be feeling like a Wozniacki.
Seems to me you have very little understanding of the system and how it actually works. It works fine. Your idea would work awfully in practice.
Not possible. All Nadal needs to do is reach the quarterfinals at the China Open and he will overtake Djokovic for #1, even if Djokovic wins the title again. If Djokovic loses in the final, Nadal would become #1 even if he loses his first match.
dooknookem
Rookie
Damn son that's exactly what I said in the first line of my post, thanks for clearing it up for me Scooby.
uncooling
Semi-Pro
It's AMAZING how Djokovic has only 3000 more points when Nadal played only 16 months while Novak played 24 months!
Just for a comparison, 3000 is a number that must be used in this context.
Nadal has 3000 more points than Djokovic while not playing Australian Open and Miami. He also has more than 5000 points than Djokovic since his return..
It looks like Djokovic's fans are mad that Nadal is #1, is the best player right now, is winning more matches and beating Djkovic badly on hard courts. Otherwise, they wouldn't need to calculate based on 2 years where Nadal was absent for 8 months!
Nadal's fans will take this as a compliment because there's no other way for Novak's fans to bring Nadal down, other than calculating the points Novak gained while Nadal was away
Just for a comparison, 3000 is a number that must be used in this context.
Nadal has 3000 more points than Djokovic while not playing Australian Open and Miami. He also has more than 5000 points than Djokovic since his return..
It looks like Djokovic's fans are mad that Nadal is #1, is the best player right now, is winning more matches and beating Djkovic badly on hard courts. Otherwise, they wouldn't need to calculate based on 2 years where Nadal was absent for 8 months!
Nadal's fans will take this as a compliment because there's no other way for Novak's fans to bring Nadal down, other than calculating the points Novak gained while Nadal was away
While, a Nadal fan, he was the one that proposed the 2 year concept. Based on my initial post, I was informed by another poster, not the OP, that it was mocking Nadal for the 2 year concept. I don't see it that way. Nadal missed 7-8 months and is still viable for number one! He's proved his point. One can miss a chunk of time and show improved play. I guess that was missed. Nadal mentioned time off that would allow players to improve. I believe he showed that this year. Even if he doesn't end up in ranking points for the year, he's been the best player.It's AMAZING how Djokovic has only 3000 more points when Nadal played only 16 months while Novak played 24 months!
Just for a comparison, 3000 is a number that must be used in this context.
Nadal has 3000 more points than Djokovic while not playing Australian Open and Miami. He also has more than 5000 points than Djokovic since his return..
It looks like Djokovic's fans are mad that Nadal is #1, is the best player right now, is winning more matches and beating Djkovic badly on hard courts. Otherwise, they wouldn't need to calculate based on 2 years where Nadal was absent for 8 months!
Nadal's fans will take this as a compliment because there's no other way for Novak's fans to bring Nadal down, other than calculating the points Novak gained while Nadal was away
clayqueen
Talk Tennis Guru
clayqueen
Talk Tennis Guru
What prompted Nadal to suggest a 2 yr ranking system was when Delpo took injury time out as #5 and returned after 1 yr as #483.
Nadal didn't need the protected ranking which only enabled him to qualify for tournaments and IMO only Fed and Nole suffered because of Nadal going down to #5 because it only meant that he beat them earlier in the QF and Sf instead.
Nadal didn't need the protected ranking which only enabled him to qualify for tournaments and IMO only Fed and Nole suffered because of Nadal going down to #5 because it only meant that he beat them earlier in the QF and Sf instead.
Last edited:
Lol
He is pretty close to being Wozniaki now.
Wrong, Wozniak never won a GS. Huge difference.
Chico
Banned
Lol
He is pretty close to being Wozniaki now.
This is not a fair comparison at all. Djokovic is still the proper number one for a good reason and justifiably so. Djokovic has much more points from 4 slams this year that Nadal for example (5120 vs 4010). Nadal is not the number one because he missed one slam and failed miserably on another (1st round). Someone like that does not have a proper and indisputable claim to #1 spot as the best player in the world.
It is as simple as that.
the issue with that is earlier tournaments become more important, ie they count not only at the beginning of the eyar but then at the end of the year also. it would make the ao the most important slam by far, because then its results would count in the rankings for whole year. the uso results would only start counting in septemeber. wouldn't be fair.
Well, isn't this already the case for the one year system? Why would it be different for a 2 year system? What am I missing?
Mustard
Bionic Poster
I spoke out on these forums against the 2-year ranking idea.
http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?p=6163099
While, I made a mistake tonight with Chico, I have seen that he is selective in how he responds and groups all Nadal fans as one.
I don't know how the 2 year benefits one except that the tour is long, and a top player shouldn't necessarily start from the same place a lower level player is if they both get equally injured. I'm not sure what I'm missing in how else it would matter in regards to rankings.
Crisstti
Legend
Exactly.
It would be of course unfair to maintain the ranking and/or seeding of the player who's been out with injury, since the player(s) who overtook him fairly won the points. The two year ranking system would address this problem.
The idea has both its pros and cons.
Well, his point about a longer off season was a different one than the two year ranking system. Plus, he wasn't practising almost at all during the seven months, so I don't think it actually proves that point either...
No, because points from any tournament count for 52 weeks, while in the proposed idea they would count until the end of the year. So for example, the USO points would counts only for roughly 4 months.
I'm not sure what you're saying. I'm confused.
Crisstti
Legend
Points won with the ranking as it is, in any tournament, stay with the player for a whole year, and they only drop when the same tournament is played again the next year.
If the idea proposed by a poster here was applied, and the race was basically the ranking, then points earned at the beginning of the year would stay with player for longer, therefore lessening the importance of the tournaments the later they come in the year. For example, player A winning the first two slams could have those points for longer and therefore he'd be able to be high up in the rankings longer than player B who won the last two slams.
At least that's what I understood
Points won with the ranking as it is, in any tournament, stay with the player for a whole year, and they only drop when the same tournament is played again the next year.
If the idea proposed by a poster here was applied, and the race was basically the ranking, then points earned at the beginning of the year would stay with player for longer, therefore lessening the importance of the tournaments the later they come in the year. For example, player A winning the first two slams could have those points for longer and therefore he'd be able to be high up in the rankings longer than player B who won the last two slams.
At least that's what I understood
Ok, I guess I understood it differently. I understood it to be that Jan 1, was the starting line for gaining points.
What I don't get is how that would differ in 1 or 2 years for the schedule.
Yes, what you are saying is true.. Given Novak and Nadal in 2012 and 2013, this seems to be the case. Nadal has won more than Novak over the past 2 years, but Novak is number 1. It seems that it would behoove Nadal to not miss as much time as he has and have more points in order to be the year end #1 after 2 years.
Maybe, Nadal is crafty enough to show the number 1 ranking for what it is, 1 year or 2, as less of a measure as to the actual stats on court!
clayqueen
Talk Tennis Guru
The answer is to have a substantive ranking system for a longer period based on h2h, in which case Nadal will be the substantive #1.
Well, it seems that would be more complex than other ranking. Of course, it would be imposing what GOAT is in the ranking. Thus, I think ranking doesn't make the player.
MichaelNadal
Bionic Poster
Backspin1183
Talk Tennis Guru
Welcome back, Viktor!
Oh and Nadal is the best player this year by far, says Djokovic himself. Don't you dare disagree with your idol, no?
Chico
Banned
Fair enough. Should not bundle you all together.
Chico
Banned
Welcome back, Viktor!
Oh and Nadal is the best player this year by far, says Djokovic himself. Don't you dare disagree with your idol, no?
What you, I and Novak think about who is the best player is subjective and irrelevant.
The only real and objective measure is ATP ranking and Novak is still #1 there, due to Nadal's failures in two out of 4 slams this season.
10 points total from two slams do not make a clear and dominant #1. So, if Nadal had better Wimbledon he would be #1 now, but since he failed there he is still #2 and you people should stop whining about it. It is as simple as that.
Nadal will be ranked 1 soon anyway so I don't understand all this moaning about the ranking.
Backspin1183
Talk Tennis Guru
Look, Mr Troicki, I'm NOT whining about the #1 ranking at all. I understand how it works and don't see a problem in Nadal not yet being #1 so far. Djokovic earned several points last year and this year too and deserves the #1 ranking that's still with him. But now Nadal's done much better than him this year and therefore will be the new #1 ranked player in a week or two.
Last edited:
5555
Hall of Fame
You did not say anything like that in the first line of your post. Also, you did not ask for someone to explain to you how the ranking system works, so I felt no need to clear it up for you. I was just merely responding to your ridiculous suggestion of how the ranking system works.
dooknookem
Rookie
C'mon man you're making me quote myself now
Instead of dissing my not so outlandish idea of having the points reset every year and start fresh like most other sports on the planet do how bout you explain why in practice it's a horrible idea, instead of just stating so?
dooknookem
Rookie
Wouldn't this make the US open even more important? It would be the last big event for players to accrue points before the season comes to an end.
Plenty of others have already explained why it is a bad idea, but if you need me to repeat them, I guess I can. It is a bad idea because it places more value on events in the beginning of the year and less on events at the end. The WTF would be essentially meaningless as the points would be dropped before the next tournament began. The current system which values points earned at different points throughout the year equally makes much more sense. Weeks at number 1 would pretty much become a meaningless statistic since the winner of the AO would likely be #1 for a good portion of the year even if they were awful the rest of the year. Also, seeds at tournaments early in the year would not be fair to players who typically do better in the second half of the year.
Last edited:
No, it would make it less important because winning the US Open would only help your ranking for approximately 4 months while winning the AO would help for a full year.
dooknookem
Rookie
Who cares how "long" a given tournament helps your ranking though? Isn't it your ranking at the end of the year that matters? I always see people here say Sampras finished year end #1 x number of times etc.
Imagine going into the WTFs and 2 or 3 players each have a certain amount of points from the season and whoever wins the WTFs ends up leading the points race and finishing #1 for the season. That would give that tournament a whole new level of importance. Winner take all for the year? That would be insane. People here liken the WTF to a slam (lol) but in this scenario it definitely would be close to it.
veroniquem
Bionic Poster
2 year system is a bad idea for tennis, no offense to Rafa. Intuitively, everyone knows that Nadal should end 2013 as #1 and he almost certainly will. The reasons why he is not #1 YET are legit too (no point in half the slams this year + no point for end of 2012). The current ranking system is pretty good. I hope they keep it for a while. It does a good job of reflecting players overall perf with as much "fairness" as possible and a decent balance between rewarding wins and consistency.
Many knowledgeable tennis fans care about weeks at #1. If you don't care, you are free to not look at the rankings and to look at the race instead. It is already there and free for you to look at. No one is forcing you to look at the rankings if they really bother you that much.
The race already does exactly what you are proposing. In case you did not realize how to view the current race standings, please go to http://www.atpworldtour.com/Rankings/YTD-Singles.aspx
It's AMAZING how Djokovic has only 3000 more points when Nadal played only 16 months while Novak played 24 months!
Just for a comparison, 3000 is a number that must be used in this context.
Nadal has 3000 more points than Djokovic while not playing Australian Open and Miami. He also has more than 5000 points than Djokovic since his return..
It looks like Djokovic's fans are mad that Nadal is #1, is the best player right now, is winning more matches and beating Djkovic badly on hard courts. Otherwise, they wouldn't need to calculate based on 2 years where Nadal was absent for 8 months!
Nadal's fans will take this as a compliment because there's no other way for Novak's fans to bring Nadal down, other than calculating the points Novak gained while Nadal was away
Nadal not playing is penalized a lot. I mean for a guy who has 13 majors vs 6 against Nole, that they have the same amount of weeks at nr.1, is strange.
I mean Rafa dominates only in spurs. His domination is non-linear. He can't sustain is consistently. While Djokovic is always nr.1 or nr.2, right at the top.
Last years Nole is better. But when Rafa has the ultra edge is before 2011. Here Nole did nothing compared to Rafa. We can't just count last 3 years. Doesn't work this way.
KillerServe
Banned
Nadal is the biggest hypocrite in the history of tennis, that much is clear.
Backspin1183
Talk Tennis Guru
Yes, he said he doesn't want Djokovic to have the #1 ranking again.
Backspin1183
Talk Tennis Guru
Last year Nole is better? Sure, fellow Fed fan. I don't know why the ATP gave Nadal the #1 ranking when Nole was better.
Chico
Banned
Because of the MM points Nadal piled up on his South America 2013 tour. If you look at the relevant tournaments only (GSs, WTF, Masters and important 500s with decent competition), Djokovic was clearly ahead. That is why he was pronounced ITF World Champion for 2013.
Backspin1183
Talk Tennis Guru
I see. Djokovic lost both his slam matches vs Nadal. That was sad. The better player lost. RG I guess was because of Pascal Maria and USO was maybe the wind or fatigue or the pro Nadal crowd or something like that. There's always a reason when Djokovic loses to Nadal. Let's be prepared for another 'reason' should Novak lose to Nadal in Melbourne.
I'm ready with mine. I'd blame the heat and humidity. You?
Similar threads
