Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by dj's fan3, May 13, 2009.
how did that happend i went to sleep last night and i must have missed something?:
He didn't defend any of the tournys that he won last year.
he did well but not good enough compared to last year while murray did alot better than he did before.
Too many of these threads. Go and learn how ranking works or read one of many earlier threads where this is discussed.
However, if the thread was "How did Federer become 2nd ranked," you would be all over it with a response.
Thats how it works, when someone wakes up,ATP rankings change.
If it was 15th thread with that same topic, than no.
Because is Murray playing better tennis than Djokovic?
'Better' is too subjective. Murray overtook Novak because he has won more points these last 52 weeks - seemples.
But he is playing better tennis tho.
In your view Max, and maybe mine too - but it's only our opinion; others are entitled to disagree with us. What they can't disagree with is the fact that Andy has won more points than Novak these last 12 months.
I thought ive seen you somewhere.
I noticed you over there the other night too mate.
Being ranked/seeded 3 vs. 4 is irrelevant. You have an equal chance of landing in the 1 seed's half of the bracket. Likewise, there is absolutely no material difference being ranked 5, 6, 7, or 8, since the quarter in which those players wind up is completely random.
Yet another reason for the ATP to start doing true seeding (1 vs. 4 and 2 vs. 3 in the semis, 1 vs. 8 and 2 vs. 7 etc. in the quarters, 1 vs. 16 and 2 vs. 15 etc. in the round of 16)...
They used to have that but found that it became incredibly dull to have the exact same match up all the time. I like it this way a lot more. There is order, but still some variety.
Random is much better. Seffina gave you one reason. Another problem with fixed seeding would be that players might tank a smaller tournament to lose a spot and avoid bad matchup in the bigger tournament. For example if Nadal is still #2 (think last year), either Murray or Novak could tank Madrid to make sure they are #4 and avoid Nadal in the RG SF. Or #5 player cold tank Madrid to drop to #6 and basically pick and choose to play #3 Murray in RG QF instead #4 Novak.
It is much better as is.
highly, highly, highly unlikely that anyone in the top 10 would tank a match for that reason.
as for the the theory of random draws creating variety, for me the idea should be to keep the integrity of the sport intact. take aussie 08 for example -- why should federer have to play novak in the semis? In that case the #1 ranking (NUMBER ONE RANKING!) was meaningless. Say Del Potro steps up his game another couple notches -- how fair would it be for Rafa to draw him in the freaking quarters?
I don't think it is that unlikely. Anyway I still like it the way it is much much better.
Batz, you should check out Murraysworld.com
You can actually be yourself on there and be critical of Murray without being reprimanded.
I might just do that Clydey - cheers.
ya but the problems with that is that sometimes the difference in the rankings can be very steep. For example, when the top 4 was Fed, Nadal, Djoker and Davy, it was tough when he got in Feds half of the draw cause he was clearly superior to Davy.
An example of how these can play out was in 07 when Roddick fell to 5 in the world after lossing to Djokovic in Canada. Becuase of this, he was put in Darth Federers quarter of the draw despite playing farly well.
Separate names with a comma.