The #1: 2 Wins by Late April

[Lleytonstation]

Dont blame Djoker. Not his fault he doesnt have to win matches anymore to remain #1.

So why is this happening? It is not like he ripped it up after USO either.

Maybe I am wrong, but could a golfer be #1 and not play for 5 months?

Then again, maybe it just speaks to his incredible run last year. I dont know, but this doesnt sit right with me.

Should there be something where the points start to fall off slowly over the 52 weeks. Where every 3 months you lose a fourth of the points, then half the points after 6 months, and then 3/4 points after 9 months, and then finally they all drop off at 12 months?

***By the way, I understand exactly how the ranking system works. But it is a terrible system that needs fixing. That or the tour is just so bad they cant catch a guy that doesnt win matches for almost half a year.

 

[Deleted member 788697]

Tennis shouldn't have a #1 until December.
Chase the title of year-end-#1, and that is the only #1 in tennis.
"Weeks" ranked #1 is a pile of nonsense, and no other sport does that.
The football leagues don't count weeks, they just crown a winner at the end of the season.

 

[llgtennislegend]

People overract on this. Novak has Three slams, one slam final, and one master last year. I would say it's normal to be No. 1 with more than 8000 points remaining at the moment.

 

[UnforcedTerror]

Maybe I am wrong, but could a golfer be #1 and not play for 5 months?

Is golf ranking based on the past 12 months?

 

[Kralingen]

Not really too hard to understand.

He played 1 tournament in 2021 pre April. Australia. 2000 points there which have already dropped. Didn't play Miami or IW or Dubai.

So the reason he's #1 is the fact that we haven't gotten into the meat of his 2021 wins: RG, Wimbledon, Rome F, USO F, etc. He will lose it very soon.

And the fact that both Nadal and Medvedev have missed big chunks of time to injury so they are hardly #1 contenders. In the past 12 months, Nadal has actually missed more time than Djokovic.

 

[UnforcedTerror]

People overract on this. Novak has Three slams, one slam final, and one master last year. I would say it's normal to be No. 1 with more than 8000 points remaining at the moment.

It's funny how there are so many here who don't understand how the tennis ranking works and this a tennis forum lol

 

[AO13]

I cannot understand how people who watch tennis regularly for years cannot comprehend how tennis rankings work.

Or don't want to because Djokovic is number 1.

 

[Deleted member 748597]

Djokovic won the AO, Indian Wells, Miami, Madrid and Rome in 2011 and still wasn't #1. Give me those weeks.

 

[Lleytonstation]

People overract on this. Novak has Three slams, one slam final, and one master last year. I would say it's normal to be No. 1 with more than 8000 points remaining at the moment.

Yet has like 10 points this year... That was ALL last year.

 

[Lleytonstation]

Djokovic won the AO, Indian Wells, Miami, Madrid and Rome in 2011 and still wasn't #1. Give me those weeks.

Deal. Trade in progress.

 

[Lleytonstation]

I cannot understand how people who watch tennis regularly for years cannot comprehend how tennis rankings work.

Or don't want to because Djokovic is number 1.

We understand it.... it just is a terrible system.

 

[Lleytonstation]

It's funny how there are so many here who don't understand how the tennis ranking works and this a tennis forum lol

Nah, you guys are being basic. I understand the ranking very well, but they should not work like this. Terrible system.

 

[Lleytonstation]

Not really too hard to understand.

He played 1 tournament in 2021 pre April. Australia. 2000 points there which have already dropped. Didn't play Miami or IW or Dubai.

So the reason he's #1 is the fact that we haven't gotten into the meat of his 2021 wins: RG, Wimbledon, Rome F, USO F, etc. He will lose it very soon.

And the fact that both Nadal and Medvedev have missed big chunks of time to injury so they are hardly #1 contenders. In the past 12 months, Nadal has actually missed more time than Djokovic.

Dude, I get it. But they should change it.

 

[Dominic & Andrey]

Alcaraz will stop him

 

[Kralingen]

Dude, I get it. But they should change it.

To what exactly?

 

[Lleytonstation]

To what exactly?

Like my OP says, where points incrementally drop off every 3 months. It would be a more accurate representation of form.

 

[Kralingen]

Like my OP says, where points incrementally drop off every 3 months. It would be a more accurate representation of form.

But that would severely disadvantage players with injuries and make them come back sooner than they were ready.

 

[Lleytonstation]

But that would severely disadvantage players with injuries and make them come back sooner than they were ready.

Yes, yes it would. This is sports, injuries play a role. Hence Djoker being number one seed right now without a top ten level.

 

[ibbi]

The ATP rankings is its own competition, obviously screwed some by the goings-on of the previous couple of years. The race is clearly the better way of gauging the state of things.

 

[Mediterranean Might]

It definitely shows the quirks of the ranking system and I think it’s just further evidence that shows YE#1 is a better measure. Novak also has that stat under lock and he’s not trending to be this year’s YE1 so we can’t really fault him too much

 

[Biotic]

Yet has like 10 points this year... That was ALL last year.

But, Rafa was all for a 2-year ranking system. Imagine Djoko safe at #1 till at least mid-2022.

 

[beard]

Ranking system is good and in use for many years without major changes... It's 12 months system because there are different conditions at tournaments during one year, so it must be at least 1 year system... 2 year system that Nadal proposed would magnify "problem" from OP...

Novak played little last year in first 4 months, and played great through whole last year so he deserves No1, same as new No1 will deserve that spot...

I like ranking system the most because it's pure mathematics, no subjectivity involved... System is extremelly important part of tennis history so it won't be changed, I hope...

 

[beard]

Like my OP says, where points incrementally drop off every 3 months. It would be a more accurate representation of form.

No, imagine player good at one surface, clay for example... He get good amount of points during clay season, just to drop most/all 3 months later and start next clay season from the bottom, playing qualifications...

Simple truth is that in current system, it's quite hard to advance, but if you have quality you will succeed and will stay on top because system protect you some time...

Imagine players getting extremely low and extremely high at ranking list, what would draws look like?

I mean, system is inforced 50 years, don't OP think someone would think off if there is better one?

 

[The Fedfather]

Djokovic's ranking now is the result of the 4 Slams being heavily weighted against other tournaments, which makes sense and most fans clearly agree with. It's just an extremely rare situation for a player to almost win the CYGS and then drop off the radar for 5 months next season. It's an exception, not the rule. Most of the time, the #1 is indeed the best player in the world. I don't think the ranking system in tennis is bad, except for the COVID adjustments that are weird.

 

[Lleytonstation]

No, imagine player good at one surface, clay for example... He get good amount of points during clay season, just to drop most/all 3 months later and start next clay season from the bottom, playing qualifications...

Simple truth is that in current system, it's quite hard to advance, but if you have quality you will succeed and will stay on top because system protect you some time...

Imagine players getting extremely low and extremely high at ranking list, what would draws look like?

I mean, system is inforced 50 years, don't OP think someone would think off if there is better one?

Just because something has been in place for 50 years does not mean there is not a better alternative. I just threw one out. You made some good points why that would not work either. But surely there is something better than the 52 week option.

 

[Rattie]

I don’t really see a better way but in the end it essentially means weeks at No 1 aren’t a record that significantly means a player is the best overall as many of those weeks can be accrued when the player isn’t playing or even when they’re playing poorly.
Right now, Novak is certainly not the worlds best player.

 

[weakera]

Weeks at 1 is not completely meaningless but it is a hilarious meme record that is hugely driven by external factors. YE1 is infinitely more significant.

 

[AO13]

We understand it.... it just is a terrible system.

It is what it is.

It's always been like this.

 

[clayqueen]

It's funny how there are so many here who don't understand how the tennis ranking works and this a tennis forum lol

To be fair the ranking system is unusual atm because of Covid. There are still points from 2019 yet ot come off. The 52 week cycle is not perfect but gradually dropping points is not fair either.

 

[beard]

Just because something has been in place for 50 years does not mean there is not a better alternative. I just threw one out. You made some good points why that would not work either. But surely there is something better than the 52 week option.

Well, it seems there isn't anything better... It's not a rocket science, someone would figure something in last 50 years... No need to brake working system...

 

[I Am Finnish]

PROPAGANDA

 

[TTMR]

How is Nadal #4? Hasn't he only had one loss or something?

 

[TripleATeam]

Oh poor sweet summer child...

1. If you did something like this you'd get weird results like grass season seeds being based solely on clay performance, Canada/Cincinnati/USO being based off of clay and grass, and clay being based exclusively on hard courts. As it stands, a clay-court specialist can rely on entering clay tournaments as a seed based on his performance last year. This would overwhelmingly favor those who transition surfaces quickest.

2. Rome 2021 isn't necessarily more important than Miami 2022 just because it happened 11 months ago. The "trade-off" here of winning one over the other is that the points from Rome 2021 will only last another month. If we assign 1000 points to a tournament and we think all tournaments of the same caliber are equal in the calendar, then we should only drop the previous one's points when the next one comes around. That's the only logical thing to do.

3. At any point, rankings should be based off of performances in the last edition of every event. If not, you start getting subjective with your rankings. For instance, "Grand Slams shouldn't have point decay, but ATP events should because XYZ". You lose a metric of objectivity.

And finally, related to this specific situation, it's been brought about by 2 things:
1. Djokovic's last 24 months have been very, very good. A mediocre #1 couldn't have done this, it had to be a strong performance, which he did by holding 2 slams and a final. Very few people can say they have something like that.
2. His rivals haven't stepped up. Medvedev could've won IW or Miami (or even just been mediocre) and taken #1 away. Zverev too. The competition happened to fall apart just as he did. Coincidence.

If either of those things wouldn't have happened, we'd have a different #1 right now. Sure, part of it is luck, but you don't change a whole system based on a fluke. You change it based on design flaws. Explain where the flaw in the design is. Where it fundamentally is unfair.

 

[helterskelter]

Djokovic won the AO, Indian Wells, Miami, Madrid and Rome in 2011 and still wasn't #1. Give me those weeks.

Nadal was reigning champion at three slams to his one, though.

 

[Poisoned Slice]

I concur.

 

[TripleATeam]

I don’t really see a better way but in the end it essentially means weeks at No 1 aren’t a record that significantly means a player is the best overall as many of those weeks can be accrued when the player isn’t playing or even when they’re playing poorly.
Right now, Novak is certainly not the worlds best player.

It generates an average, though. Rankings are relatively slow to catch up, whether positively or negatively. We can also say that in 2018, Novak became the best player around Cincinnati or USO (around late August), but even despite a VERY good end of the year for him, it took until the ATP Finals to surpass Nadal's total points, costing him about 3 months of #1.

Conversely, Nadal was probably deserving of the #1 place by the 2019 USO (early September) but gained it right before the ATP Finals in November, which also cost him 2.5-3 months of #1.

By design, the rankings do not measure a point in time, they measure a rolling average of the last 52 weeks. If a player can consistently play like the best player in the world, they will achieve the #1 position in less than 52 weeks. If they can't, then they aren't #1 - they're just opportunistically peaking. You wouldn't call Stan the #1 for his performance in 2015 RG, even if it was better than Novak.

 

[Rattie]

It generates an average, though. Rankings are relatively slow to catch up, whether positively or negatively. We can also say that in 2018, Novak became the best player around Cincinnati or USO (around late August), but even despite a VERY good end of the year for him, it took until the ATP Finals to surpass Nadal's total points, costing him about 3 months of #1.

Conversely, Nadal was probably deserving of the #1 place by the 2019 USO (early September) but gained it right before the ATP Finals in November, which also cost him 2.5-3 months of #1.

By design, the rankings do not measure a point in time, they measure a rolling average of the last 52 weeks. If a player can consistently play like the best player in the world, they will achieve the #1 position in less than 52 weeks. If they can't, then they aren't #1 - they're just opportunistically peaking. You wouldn't call Stan the #1 for his performance in 2015 RG, even if it was better than Novak.

True. I honestly wouldn’t be able to come up with an alternative which would be any fairer than what we have now.

 

[Kralingen]

It generates an average, though. Rankings are relatively slow to catch up, whether positively or negatively. We can also say that in 2018, Novak became the best player around Cincinnati or USO (around late August), but even despite a VERY good end of the year for him, it took until the ATP Finals to surpass Nadal's total points, costing him about 3 months of #1.

Conversely, Nadal was probably deserving of the #1 place by the 2019 USO (early September) but gained it right before the ATP Finals in November, which also cost him 2.5-3 months of #1.

By design, the rankings do not measure a point in time, they measure a rolling average of the last 52 weeks. If a player can consistently play like the best player in the world, they will achieve the #1 position in less than 52 weeks. If they can't, then they aren't #1 - they're just opportunistically peaking. You wouldn't call Stan the #1 for his performance in 2015 RG, even if it was better than Novak.

Exactly. You earn the #1 before you actually get it.

Medvedev earned the #1 by winning USO. Murray earned the #1 in 2016 by winning Rome/Wimby/Shanghai etc, then was a lame duck in 2017, but Federer earned the #1 with AO-Miami before he actually became #1. You put the work and then get the reward of #1.

Actually I just realized what the perfect system is for @Lleytonstation (and all the “the world #1 should be a reflection of recent form”) people.

It already exists and it’s called ELO.

Lew rules you all now.

 

[Sputnik Bulgorov]

I find it hilarious how some say that YE#1 matters while weeks at #1 don't. Every week at #1, whether in March or in December, covers the exact same tournaments over a 12 month period. YE#1 just happens to be at the end of a calendar year, which we favor because of how our brains have been taught to comprehend time.

To get back to topic, I don't see why people are so surprised that Djokovic is #1. We are in an extremely weak era where the bar for becoming #1 is very low. Gone are the days when you need 10000+ points and 18+ tournaments to become #1. Now, you have injured geriatric part-time 35/36 year olds who only play 12-13 tournaments a year and make it to the top 5.

 

[TripleATeam]

Exactly. You earn the #1 before you actually get it.

Medvedev earned the #1 by winning USO. Murray earned the #1 in 2016 by winning Rome/Wimby/Shanghai etc, then was a lame duck in 2017, but Federer earned the #1 with AO-Miami before he actually became #1. You put the work and then get the reward of #1.

Actually I just realized what the perfect system is for @Lleytonstation (and all the “the world #1 should be a reflection of recent form”) people.

It already exists and it’s called ELO.

Lew rules you all now.

Yup. Only problem is elo is even more slow to catch up. It's only "quick" in chess because they play multiple games a day.

The perfect system for anyone saying that recent form should trump yearlong consistency is simple. Just measure the winner of the most valuable tournament last week. If (for instance) Nadal didn't play last week, how do we know he wouldn't lose in R1? All we know is who did win, so they should be #1. Plus, we can't ever have long breaks for tennis players, so they need to play every week to defend their ranking.

Reilly Opelka is the real #1.

 

[Rosstour]

Shhhhhhh

Let's talk about Federer's ranking and Murray's wild cards.

 

[jondice]

It doesn't need to be changed. It's a good way to seed tourneys. It does its job.

Fans need to just stop using it as a metric that has more importance than it actually has. YE #1? Super important. But the weekly number one just doesn't say much about who the best player is at any given moment. Sometimes it does. Often it does not.

 

[onefineday]

He was knocked off the top spot very recently and he's hanging on by a thread currently.
Context is king.

 

[TripleATeam]

It doesn't need to be changed. It's a good way to seed tourneys. It does its job.

Fans need to just stop using it as a metric that has more importance than it actually has. YE #1? Super important. But the weekly number one just doesn't say much about who the best player is at any given moment. Sometimes it does. Often it does not.

Hypothetical:

Djokovic can't play the first half of the year due to covid restrictions, then Nadal wins a 250, AO, IW, Dubai, Miami, Monte Carlo, Barcelona, Madrid, Rome, RG. No losses. Then he has an injury and loses R1 in every tournament until the end of the year. Djokovic comes back and wins Wimbledon, Cincinnati, USO, Shanghai, Paris, WTF. He ends with a couple hundred fewer points than Nadal.

At that point, Djokovic is clearly the superior player, but Nadal would be YE#1. The YE#1 didn't say who was the best at that moment. It said who was best in the last 365 days, but crucially it doesn't award YE#1 to the best player at the moment, just the best player of the last year. Just like a rolling system does. A rolling system shows you who was best over the last 52 weeks... every week. The YE#1 is just picking out one of those weeks (the week of December 31) and awarding a trophy for it.

 

[GabeT]

Novak today has reached 3 of the last 4 slams finals and won 2 of them. Sounds about right for a number 1

 

[Lleytonstation]

Exactly. You earn the #1 before you actually get it.

Medvedev earned the #1 by winning USO. Murray earned the #1 in 2016 by winning Rome/Wimby/Shanghai etc, then was a lame duck in 2017, but Federer earned the #1 with AO-Miami before he actually became #1. You put the work and then get the reward of #1.

Actually I just realized what the perfect system is for @Lleytonstation (and all the “the world #1 should be a reflection of recent form”) people.

It already exists and it’s called ELO.

Lew rules you all now.

Thin line buster. Thin line.

 

[Lleytonstation]

Hypothetical:

Djokovic can't play the first half of the year due to covid restrictions, then Nadal wins a 250, AO, IW, Dubai, Miami, Monte Carlo, Barcelona, Madrid, Rome, RG. No losses. Then he has an injury and loses R1 in every tournament until the end of the year. Djokovic comes back and wins Wimbledon, Cincinnati, USO, Shanghai, Paris, WTF. He ends with a couple hundred fewer points than Nadal.

At that point, Djokovic is clearly the superior player, but Nadal would be YE#1. The YE#1 didn't say who was the best at that moment. It said who was best in the last 365 days, but crucially it doesn't award YE#1 to the best player at the moment, just the best player of the last year. Just like a rolling system does. A rolling system shows you who was best over the last 52 weeks... every week. The YE#1 is just picking out one of those weeks (the week of December 31) and awarding a trophy for it.

Maybe just do a fan vote for rankings.

 

[Third Serve]

Maybe just do a fan vote for rankings.

I agree.

 

[Gt86]

Tennis shouldn't have a #1 until December.
Chase the title of year-end-#1, and that is the only #1 in tennis.
"Weeks" ranked #1 is a pile of nonsense, and no other sport does that.
The football leagues don't count weeks, they just crown a winner at the end of the season.

Absolutely correct. The YE1 should be a huge prize. Whover is YE1 is World Champion and it be as big as say Formula One.
Then the next season players start from scratch ranking wise but the last season rankings are used for seeding purposes. I think snooker does that.
The curren tennis ranking system is plain daft . You can lose in a 1st round yet go up in the rankings depending on whether players can match or better last years performancd

 

[TripleATeam]

Absolutely correct. The YE1 should be a huge prize. Whover is YE1 is World Champion and it be as big as say Formula One.
Then the next season players start from scratch ranking wise but the last season rankings are used for seeding purposes. I think snooker does that.
The curren tennis ranking system is plain daft . You can lose in a 1st round yet go up in the rankings depending on whether players can match or better last years performancd

What's so daft about measuring the whole last year's point haul and determining who's been the best player over the last 52 weeks using that? It's the definition of fair.