Djokovic could win the WTF and Murray would still be able to end as #1...

hipolymer

hipolymer

Hall of Fame
What a joke this ranking system is. If Djokovic gets 1300 points at WTF, Murray could still clinch #1 by winning Paris and getting 1000 points at WTF

So we could have a situation where one player would have 2 slams, 4 masters, and the WTF and STILL not be #1

This is what happens when the points system gives no incentive to be number 1, when the 2nd ranked player gets the same draw benefits, and gets MORE THAN HALF THE POINTS THAT THE WINNER GETS JUST BY REACHING THE FINAL:


2000 points for slam winner, 1200 points for finalist
1000 points for Masters winner, 600 for finalist
1300-1500 points for WTF winner, 800-1000 for finalist


What an absolute joke this ranking system is. Djokovic beat Murray in 2 slam finals and still will lose his #1, all because the points system gives no incentive to be #1
 
Someone who goes deep all year long and someone who does well half the year then gets butt blasted for the rest of it. I know who I think should be #1.
 
Bukmeikara said:
The ranking system is as perfect as it can be, stop ******** for everything and just accept that Murray earned his chance to be number 1
Click to expand...
It's clearly NOT perfect when the number 1 player gets no benefits, and a finalist gets more than half the points that the actual winner gets, which is absolutely ridiculous.


spirit95 said:
Someone who goes deep all year long and someone who does well half the year then gets butt blasted for the rest of it. I know who I think should be #1.
Click to expand...

Except Djokovic reached the USO final
 
Nadal and Djokovic were in a similar situation in 2013. Nadal had won 2 slams but Djokovic with his 1 slam had a chance to end the year at no.1. But Nadal was a true man and stopped Novak. Now 3 years later Nole can't do the same thing and stop Murray and that's despite the help of a Guru :eek:
 
hipolymer said:
It would be an even bigger travesty. Olympics are a glorified 500 tournament. Half the top players didn't even play
Click to expand...

maxresdefault.jpg
 
Murray also has 275 points from DC last year.
So he only has 200 pts over Djokovic in the race for Year End should he win Paris Masters.
Basically Djokovic has to win WTF undefeated and he will be #1 regardless of what Murray does.
IF he does that than I guess he deserves to be #1,otherwise Murray shall have it.
 
op forgot dc points of murray being dropped after wtf.

Djokovic has been sh1te since the fo in june. w/l record is 17-5. so if Djokovic loses year end no1..its his poor play that did it, in combination with murray winning.
 
the question is: why is Nole suddenly playing bad?

I watched him play the doubles with Zimonic and he was outplayed on all baseline rallies by the two French men, who are not great at all from the baseline. he played like a top 50 player, not even top 10.
 
I can understand the OP's frustration with the ranking system, however he's looking at it with the wrong perspective. The #1 ranking is all about CONSISTENCY, not how many slams/tournaments you won. If Murray is YE #1, then that's fair enough because he was about as consistent as Djokovic during the first half of the year, but he also kept it up during the 2nd half which Djokovic failed to do. Djokovic might have more titles, still he faced early exit @W and at the MS-1000 so he wasn't that consistent.
 
Roddick85 said:
I can understand the OP's frustration with the ranking system, however he's looking at it with the wrong perspective. The #1 ranking is all about CONSISTENCY, not how many slams/tournaments you won. If Murray is YE #1, then that's fair enough because he was about as consistent as Djokovic during the first half of the year, but he also kept it up during the 2nd half which Djokovic failed to do. Djokovic might have more titles, still he faced early exit @W and at the MS-1000 so he wasn't that consistent.
Click to expand...

Err, what good is consistency if you lose in the final rather than R3 or R4? You still lost. The winner of slams didn't lose at all, and yet he still only gets less than half the points of the runner up. No matter which way you look at it, the points system makes little sense.
 
hipolymer said:
It would be an even bigger travesty. Olympics are a glorified 500 tournament. Half the top players didn't even play
Click to expand...
Really? Not what Djokovic said! Or Murray or nadal! Their opinion counts a lot more than some couch potato....no offence intended.

Also I seem to recall in 2013 that when nadal won the USO and nadal fans said he is the true no.1 whatever happens , all the Djokovic fans flooded various forums saying whoever finished no.1 is the best and they were all treating Beijing where he beat Rafa as a very important tournament!!!

Strange how suddenly the rankings aren't reliable!!!!

I like always being right. I have always said the rankings are meaningless. It took a while but seems Serbia is now onboard.
 
hipolymer said:
No. A slam tournament gets progressively more difficult. It makes no sense to award the same points for a final as for a R2
Click to expand...

The fact that Murray has reached more later rounds proves that he has won more progressively difficult matches as opposed to Novak who is getting manhandled by Querrey, Vesely , Agut and Cilic.

So, Novak gets what he gets.

If Murray wins tomorrow, he becomes the Earth's mightiest warrior.
 
hipolymer said:
Err, what good is consistency if you lose in the final rather than R3 or R4? You still lost. The winner of slams didn't lose at all, and yet he still only gets less than half the points of the runner up. No matter which way you look at it, the points system makes little sense.
Click to expand...
I disagree. If you win one more match than someone else, why get double the points? The added glory comes in winning the title and being remembered forever. In terms of results, winner goes 6-0 or 7-0 compared to 5-1 or 6-1. It would make no sense to award a runner up 1000 and the winner 3000.

The year end #1 had the most solid season. One season. grand slam titles are immortal.
 
hipolymer said:
What a joke this ranking system is. If Djokovic gets 1300 points at WTF, Murray could still clinch #1 by winning Paris and getting 1000 points at WTF

So we could have a situation where one player would have 2 slams, 4 masters, and the WTF and STILL not be #1

This is what happens when the points system gives no incentive to be number 1, when the 2nd ranked player gets the same draw benefits, and gets MORE THAN HALF THE POINTS THAT THE WINNER GETS JUST BY REACHING THE FINAL:


2000 points for slam winner, 1200 points for finalist
1000 points for Masters winner, 600 for finalist
1300-1500 points for WTF winner, 800-1000 for finalist


What an absolute joke this ranking system is. Djokovic beat Murray in 2 slam finals and still will lose his #1, all because the points system gives no incentive to be #1
Click to expand...

Just shut up and take the loss like a man. You are a shame of Djokovic's fan bases.
 
tacou said:
I disagree. If you win one more match than someone else, why get double the points? The added glory comes in winning the title and being remembered forever. In terms of results, winner goes 6-0 or 7-0 compared to 5-1 or 6-1. It would make no sense to award a runner up 1000 and the winner 3000.

The year end #1 had the most solid season. One season. grand slam titles are immortal.
Click to expand...

Who said anything about 3000? 2500 would be perfect
 
hipolymer said:
Err, what good is consistency if you lose in the final rather than R3 or R4? You still lost. The winner of slams didn't lose at all, and yet he still only gets less than half the points of the runner up. No matter which way you look at it, the points system makes little sense.
Click to expand...
Regardless, the system rewards consistency over titles. Just look at the WTA. Years ago, everyone was upset because Wozniacki was #1 yet she never won a slam, she was a "paper champ". Now is Murray a paper champ if he ends up #1 because Novak has 2 slams vs 1 for Murray? I don't think so because he had a great year. The higher your ranking is, the more likely you're going deep in all tournaments you enter. Doing that week after week is a display of consistency. If a players wins 5 tournaments over 3 months but loses early the rest of the time vs a player who won 2 tournaments, yet makes the final most of the time, then I think it's fair that he's ranked above the former.
 
stephenbbb said:
the question is: why is Nole suddenly playing bad?
Click to expand...

It's pretty obvious. In recent years, Djokovic has been hugely motivated by his quest to win the French Open. This year, he finally managed to win the French Open after years of being thwarted by Federer, Nadal or Wawrinka. Finally winning the tournament (and holding all 4 majors at the same time) was like letting air out of a balloon. Djokovic now had to change his mindset, and he's struggling with that. It's like Wilander in 1988 after he won the US Open and became world number 1. Wilander struggled to get motivated afterwards.

If Djokovic parts ways with Becker soon, I won't be surprised. Djokovic is now in a very different place mentally to where he was at 3 years ago.
 
It's not possible op.

If Djokovic gets 1300 pts at WTF he will have 12080.
If Murray wins Paris and makes it to the WTF final, he will have 11910. (275 pts excluded)

So Djokovic needs to win the title and YE#1 is his.
 
People do realise that in order to be YE #1 you have to be consistent throught the whole of the year, right?
Yes Djokovic had a bloody brilliant 1st half of the season but he's dropped like a stone in the second. Murray has been the most consistent player throughout the year, not even Muzziah haters can deny this. It's really not that hard to understand.
 
Last edited:
hipolymer said:
What an absolute joke this ranking system is. Djokovic beat Murray in 2 slam finals and still will lose his #1, all because the points system gives no incentive to be #1
Click to expand...

The slams are about prestige, and as said the #1 ranking is about consistency. Djokovic's 2016 is more prestigious, Murray's 2016 has been more consistent.

I'm sure Djokovic would prefer to have the most prestigious and the most consistent 2016.
 
Tennis Analyst said:
It's not possible op.

If Djokovic gets 1300 pts at WTF he will have 12080.
If Murray wins Paris and makes it to the WTF final, he will have 11910. (275 pts excluded)

So Djokovic needs to win the title and YE#1 is his.
Click to expand...

IF Murray wins Paris, he will have 130 points YE advantage [ 275 deducted] so Djokovic must win more points than him at WTF in order to be YE#1.

If Murray goes to final, Djokovic needs a win, but if Murray doesn't reach final, then Djokovic doesn't need a win, just to make more points than Murray.
 
OP's scenario means:

Djokovic
2 Slams
WTF
3 Slam Finals Overall
4 Masters

Murray
1 Slam
3 Slam Finals Overall
WTF Runner-Up
3 Masters

It's blatantly clear that Murray essentially gets the #1 because he did better at the 500 tournaments and thus raked in more points to overcome worse results at the bigger tournaments. Three 500 titles to zero. Good for him I guess.
 
Oh, and if Djokovic does regain the #1 after WTF, that will mean Murray carries the #1 for a measly 3 weeks.
 
Djokovic2011 said:
Surely you meant Djokohaters, no?
Click to expand...

I don't mind Djokovic the player and some of his fans like yourself but there is a couple of Djokovic fans that would just downright put down the all time greats and believe Djokovic would easily GOAT his achievements in late 2014 to 2016. It started to get annoying.

Now you guys get to see what Federer fans have been going through since 2013 and Nadal fans since 2014.
 
As many others have said, should Murray reach number 1 it will be due to his consistency and the fact Djokovic's losses have come prior to the Final (except US Open). When you are for the most part defending full points and the guy chasing is largely improving his results from the year prior and winning titles in doing so it's going to be a tough ask to retain your grip on number 1 spot.

The rankings system is of course not perfect but I'm yet to see anyone put forward a fool proof alternative....Djokovic in the scheme of things has of course had a sensational year, however his early exits coupled with Murray's overall consistency is what has allowed the current scenario to evolve.

I'm personally very surprised that Murray has a chance so soon to claim the number 1 ranking, really thought it wouldn't be until around IW/Miami that he'd have a realistic shot...just goes to show how early exits can very quickly pull you back to the chasing pack.
 
hipolymer said:
It would be an even bigger travesty. Olympics are a glorified 500 tournament. Half the top players didn't even play
Click to expand...

Well, even if you think so that's still 500 points he should have had (actually they used to award 750 points for winning it but stopped doing that from this year). By rights, he should already now be number #1! ;)
 
Last edited:
Dave1982 said:
As many others have said, should Murray reach number 1 it will be due to his consistency and the fact Djokovic's losses have come prior to the Final (except US Open). When you are for the most part defending full points and the guy chasing is largely improving his results from the year prior and winning titles in doing so it's going to be a tough ask to retain your grip on number 1 spot.

The rankings system is of course not perfect but I'm yet to see anyone put forward a fool proof alternative....Djokovic in the scheme of things has of course had a sensational year, however his early exits coupled with Murray's overall consistency is what has allowed the current scenario to evolve.

I'm personally very surprised that Murray has a chance so soon to claim the number 1 ranking, really thought it wouldn't be until around IW/Miami that he'd have a realistic shot...just goes to show how early exits can very quickly pull you back to the chasing pack.
Click to expand...

The ranking system rewards well for doing well. The downside is that if you win big and often you must defend the points that gives you by continuing to win big and often.
 
Guys, there are two rankings, singles race and single. Does murray surpass djokovic in both?
 
RF-18 said:
Guys, there are two rankings, singles race and single. Does murray surpass djokovic in both?
Click to expand...

The Race to London and the ATP Rankings (the 52-week rolling rankings) become identical on the Monday following the Paris Masters, because the WTF points are dropped that Monday.
 
Last edited:
RF-18 said:
Guys, there are two rankings, singles race and single. Does murray surpass djokovic in both?
Click to expand...
Possible. there was 400 points difference in the race and once 2015 WTF is deducted, he will also lead the rankings if he beats Milos.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

T
It will be weird if Murray is number 1 AFTER the WTF but loses the YE#1 to Djokovic
Replies
16
Views
2K
TheMusicLover
TheMusicLover
T
Another scenario - Murray is number 1 after WTF but loses the YE number 1
Replies
2
Views
503
timnz
T
PeterHo
  • Poll Poll
An adjusted points system to determine greatness
2
Replies
51
Views
3K
timnz
T
BGod
So how do YOU value Slams when judging careers?
Replies
26
Views
1K
The_18th_Slam
The_18th_Slam
T
For first time ever Djokovic is within 1 tournament of passing Nadal in 500 series and above tourn.
Replies
0
Views
553
timnz
T
Back
Top