Anyone read the words from Zverev after the Halle match with Fed?

The_Order

G.O.A.T.
The ranking points he has is all the merit each player needs. They each have points which exactly reflects their performance averages over the last 52 weeks.

If a player is injured it's tough luck in sport. It always has been, and for good reason.

Why? Because that stupid system says so?

Just because the system works that way doesn't make it right. Come on, put your hatred for Nadal aside for a minute here, can you not see how flawed the system is?

The system needs to take into consideration the race points (to some degree, maybe add a percentage of race points to the ranking points) and also victories over top 10 opponents should also grant a certain amount of ranking points. These two factors should be added to the ranking formula for it to make more sense, not just comparing to where you finished the previous year.

I mean are we trying to determine who the best players are here or what?

Even this guy agrees Fe-RAHR passing Rafa in the rankings after losing the RG final to him is the dumbest thing you'll ever hear...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1C2cWD5R0c
 
Last edited:

Bobby Jr

G.O.A.T.
Why? Because that stupid system says so?

...Come on, put your hatred for Nadal aside for a minute here, can you not see how flawed the system is?
You mistake an admiration for Ferrer as a hatred of Nadal. Ferrer has achieved more in the points system than Nadal in the last calendar year. For that I have huge respect.

Multitudes of players across the ages have ranked very highly having never won a major and they all got there 100% on merit. Rios and Haas would be two other good examples.

The system is what it is. Saying it is stupid is effectively saying you hate Ferrer in this situation, and probably Federer too since he's not won anything of note in the last 48 weeks either.

The system needs to take into consideration the race points (to some degree, maybe add a percentage of race points to the ranking points)...
It does. It just doesn't chose to pick convenient progress dates like right after Nadal's favourite time of the season. Instead it chooses the appropriate time for measuring accumulated points in a season: the END OF THE SEASON. It's a *race* - races usually award a winner at the finish line, not at the end of the 4th, 9th and 15th laps.

...and also victories over top 10 opponents should also grant a certain amount of ranking points. These two factors should be added to the ranking formula for it to make more sense, not just comparing to where you finished the previous year.
So basically you want a bonus point system right? Fair enough, write an email to the ATP then with your reasoning and why it would be a better system than the current one.

I mean are we trying to determine who the best players are here or what?
Yep, and that changes week to week depending on which surface, tournament, opponents are injured etc etc etc etc etc etc. The ranking system attempts to average this out so it doesn't just reflect some partisan fans notion of who is the best player this week. That's what trophies are for: to let you know who was best at that tournament.

Even this guy agrees Fe-RAHR passing Rafa in the rankings after losing the RG final to him is the dumbest thing you'll ever hear...
Well if that is the dumbest thing you'll ever hear then you don't pay much attention in life. I hear dumber things than that almost every time I listen to an American news channel. The tool in that video can't even nearly pronounce Ferrer's name properly. It's somewhat ironic he's claiming the ranking system is stupid, he can't even figure out the English spelling system.
 
Last edited:

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
Why? Because that stupid system says so?

Just because the system works that way doesn't make it right. Come on, put your hatred for Nadal aside for a minute here, can you not see how flawed the system is?

The system needs to take into consideration the race points (to some degree, maybe add a percentage of race points to the ranking points) and also victories over top 10 opponents should also grant a certain amount of ranking points. These two factors should be added to the ranking formula for it to make more sense, not just comparing to where you finished the previous year.

I mean are we trying to determine who the best players are here or what?

Even this guy agrees Fe-RAHR passing Rafa in the rankings after losing the RG final to him is the dumbest thing you'll ever hear...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1C2cWD5R0c

The system is in place and every players have to follow the same program. Tennis is play full year around and player's total points will reflect their ranking. It's not the players or the system's fault that Nadal took 7 months off just because he lost to Rosol at Wimbledon. If you have a problem with the ranking system then why don't you write a letter to uncle Toni to force Nadal play full time tennis !:twisted:
 

Netspirit

Hall of Fame
there is a guy claiming that roger intentionally hits the ball below Center so that the racket twists and more of the energy is going into spin creation

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kmmKlOFKqvE

he basically claims federer does a "controlled shank".

Wow. Lol. Thanks.

Nope, no sane tennis player, not even Sir Shankalot himself, would be willing to trade a clean shot for any extra spin or power.

Federer's used rackets are collectible items, and all of them (without exception) have string wear right in the sweetspot.
 

Gyswandir

Semi-Pro
The ranking system

The system needs to take into consideration the race points (to some degree, maybe add a percentage of race points to the ranking points) and also victories over top 10 opponents should also grant a certain amount of ranking points. These two factors should be added to the ranking formula for it to make more sense, not just comparing to where you finished the previous year.

I mean are we trying to determine who the best players are here or what?

Even this guy agrees Fe-RAHR passing Rafa in the rankings after losing the RG final to him is the dumbest thing you'll ever hear...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1C2cWD5R0c

This perspective of the ranking system is vary narrow minded and really doesn't understand it.
The system is based on showing the best players based on their performance across a year. So, it has to keep moving. It is NOT based on comparing last year against this year. That is jut a byproduct of the rolling nature of the 52 weeks. In reality, what happens is the 52 weeks cross a tournament, its points are deducted from your ranking score, then whatever result you get is the new score. You are only judging the effect after the tournament ends, but in fact the points are dropped just before. However, the ATP only publishes them after the tournament to avoid confusion.

If you want the race to be better reflected, that will mean either having a shorter period as the rolling time frame (less than 52 weeks), which means you are not rewarding those who grind through the whole season, or actually having the beginning of the year without any ranking, which wouldn't make any sense, as you need seeds at the beginning of the season too. Unless you can suggest another way of placing seeds in the beginning of the season?

As for victories over top 10, that would reward people getting lucky with one of the top 10 having a bad week. The points are awarded based on the round you reach, which is a better reflection of YOUR performance, rather than the lack of performance of someone, who happens to be in the top 10. Imagine if Rosol got some kind of multiplier or bonus points for beating Nadal. Is that an accurate reflection of his level? No, coz he lost in the next round. Also, it would mean number 1 would remain far longer, as he is usually beating top 10 players. Unless you add that it is not counted for top 10? Not if you beat a player below you? What if 4 beats 3, but ends getting enough points to bypass 2?

Love it or hate, it works and is the best system we have so far. It shows us who has been consistently performing best across the last 52 weeks. So, unless you can come up with a system that shows the relative performance of players across a logical period of time, let's stop making haphazard suggestions.
 
Top