The ranking system is complete B.S.

A

Attila the tennis Bum

Banned
Venus Williams is now the lowest ranked player to ever win Wimbledon. And Sererna gave the #1 Sharapova a tennis lesson at the AO.

Way back when becker won both Wimbledon and the US open in one year and yet Ivan Lendl was ranked the year end #1,

Even today, if Nadal wins Wimbledon the Roger Federer will still be ranked #1 in the world.
 
What the hell are you talking about this time? I don't get you....

Points are given to the players who win the most matches. Federer won the AO, where did Nadal get to again? Federer made the Final of the FO. Federer is probably going to beat Nadal at W anyway.

Federer obviously has more points for a reason...possibly because he has won more valuable matches?

As for Venus, I don't get it. So what if she is the lowest ranked player? She's been out for a while, no play=no points you do realise?
 
Even if Nadal loses today he will be no.1 in the Race, that is, best player of 2007. After August, I think his results will be better than last year and it will be tough for Federer to repeat those results so the gap won´t be so big but still comfortable for Federer.
 
Duzza said:
What the hell are you talking about this time? I don't get you....

Points are given to the players who win the most matches. Federer won the AO, where did Nadal get to again? Federer made the Final of the FO. Federer is probably going to beat Nadal at W anyway.

Federer obviously has more points for a reason...possibly because he has won more valuable matches?

As for Venus, I don't get it. So what if she is the lowest ranked player? She's been out for a while, no play=no points you do realise?
Click to expand...

Now you don't make sense, do you know that if rafa wins w he will be number one without a doubt and that right now he is in the lead as far as points this year, um yeah
 
Oh man this is a stupid thread. What would you have them do with the rankings? In your world if a lower ranked player beats a higher ranked player then the rankings should be reversed? Should Gasquet suddenly be #4 in the world?
It's a really good system at the moment, giving us an accurate indication of who has played better over a 12 month period.
 
Attila the tennis Bum said:
Venus Williams is now the lowest ranked player to ever win Wimbledon. And Sererna gave the #1 Sharapova a tennis lesson at the AO.

Way back when becker won both Wimbledon and the US open in one year and yet Ivan Lendl was ranked the year end #1,

Even today, if Nadal wins Wimbledon the Roger Federer will still be ranked #1 in the world.
Click to expand...


I agree that they need to look at how the structure the points. I would like to see the points from the previous year play no impact upon the current year. Defending points just does not make sense to me. Every sport in the world starts the season with everyone even and at zero points.

You are onto something here...we just need to figure it out...
 
I wouldn't mind it if more points went to winners of majors. Players seem to find ways to climb up the ATP rankings without coming up with top notch play at the majors. One successful summer clay court season, for instance, can hold much more promise than a major in terms of racking up points.

Not sure what this has with Nadal and Federer. The last time I checked Roger holds three of the four majors and the masters cup.
 
I think the ATP entry system is a nice way to keep the players honest, but when I look at the ATP race for 2007, the right player is rewarded because Nadal has been more consistent and has played more.

2007:

Nadal is 51-7: 5 titles (3 MS, 1 GS).
Federer is 35-5 titles (1MS, 1 GS).

However, over the past 12 months Federer has been more consistent in all 4 majors, and the Masters Cup. But these next few months is going to be interesting because if Nadal wins or lose Wimbledon he will still have a nice lead over Federer.
 
Attila the tennis Bum said:
actually fed is so many points ahead that he will still be number one even if he loses wimby.
Click to expand...

Right now yes, but rafa is number one in the race and if he keeps it up till the end of the year he will be number one but that's a big if

what I meant by without a doubt was more of yeah it could still be a doubt if he tanks the rest of the year, but I think his tennis has come so far he will make it happen for the later half of the year
 
Rhino said:
Oh man this is a stupid thread. What would you have them do with the rankings? In your world if a lower ranked player beats a higher ranked player then the rankings should be reversed? Should Gasquet suddenly be #4 in the world?
It's a really good system at the moment, giving us an accurate indication of who has played better over a 12 month period.
Click to expand...

they should do what wimbledon does. A panel of experts votes on the true number one.
 
Venus ranking is what it is coming into to Wimbledon because she was not winning anything.

If you look at her last 6 tournaments before Wimbledon-


French Open- R32 loss
Istanbul- 2nd rd loss
Warsaw- QF loss
Charleston- SF loss
AMELIA ISLAND - QF loss
Miami- 3rd round loss

If you want a high ranking you have to win consistently. Just because she won Wimbledon doesn't mean she wasn't ranked appropriately. Maybe we should just give Safin a continuous top 5 ranking because he is has beaten top players in the past?
 
no offense to you, attila . . . but i think it's easy to diss the rankings when the player you want is not no. 1. but the system honors consistency, for better or for worse. that's just the way it is.

the venus thing . . . well, like people have said, she hadn't played much, she hadn't won anything. even STILL, people thought she was under-seeded at wimbledon this year.

besides, it's only july. who cares who is ranked what. let's see where everyone is in the fall, after the uso.
 
saram said:
I agree that they need to look at how the structure the points. I would like to see the points from the previous year play no impact upon the current year. Defending points just does not make sense to me. Every sport in the world starts the season with everyone even and at zero points.

You are onto something here...we just need to figure it out...
Click to expand...
We already have this with the race points. League type systems function in the same way. When it comes to finding the best player however, you have to be sure of their pedigree. You can't base this on a few months results. Looking at a player's performance over a year shows it's not a fluke or one off based on a 2 month streak. You have to really earn the No.1 ranking, which is why it's such a badge of honour.
 
Last edited:
What are you guys talking about? the ranking system is fine, 3 of the top 4 were the 4 players left in the draw at the semi of W, and should have been 4 of 4. So what is the problem with it? On the subject of Rafa catching Roger, that wont happen for a while as Roger will just play more tournaments for points. Also some of you have to realize how HUGE a grand slam is, like master series are not small events its just that grand slams are so big
 
saram said:
I agree that they need to look at how the structure the points. I would like to see the points from the previous year play no impact upon the current year. Defending points just does not make sense to me. Every sport in the world starts the season with everyone even and at zero points.

You are onto something here...we just need to figure it out...
Click to expand...
David L said:
We already have this with the race points. League type systems function in the same way. When it comes to finding the best player however, you have to be sure of their pedigree. You can't base this on a few months results. Looking at a player's performance over a year shows it's not a fluke or one off based on a 2 month streak. You have to really earn the No.1 ranking, which is why it's such a badge of honour.
Click to expand...
of course... and that's why pete's record with 286 weeks at #1 is impressive !
the race is only an indicator on the points earned since the beginning of the year (and it doesn't include challenger/future events)... it would be ridiculous to say that santoro has been #1 because he was leading the race when he won doha in 2000 ! :rolleyes:
 
Attila the tennis Bum said:
Venus Williams is now the lowest ranked player to ever win Wimbledon. And Sererna gave the #1 Sharapova a tennis lesson at the AO.

Way back when becker won both Wimbledon and the US open in one year and yet Ivan Lendl was ranked the year end #1,

Even today, if Nadal wins Wimbledon the Roger Federer will still be ranked #1 in the world.
Click to expand...

What are you chewing on?

The ATP race is basically a representation of how well the players are playing from the beginning of the year until this present day. If Nadal continues to have better results than Federer he will become the #1 in the ATP rankings.

The ATP rankings is a representation of how well the players have played for the last 12 months at any given point of time (there's a formula on the ATP site).

If you just want the ATP race as the AP rankings, then who would be seeded #1 at the AO? Some nobody who happens to have won the only tournament prior to the AO?
 
caulcano said:
What are you chewing on?

The ATP race is basically a representation of how well the players are playing from the beginning of the year until this present day. If Nadal continues to have better results than Federer he will become the #1 in the ATP rankings.

The ATP rankings is a representation of how well the players have played for the last 12 months at any given point of time (there's a formula on the ATP site).

If you just want the ATP race as the AP rankings, then who would be seeded #1 at the AO? Some nobody who happens to have won the only tournament prior to the AO?
Click to expand...


wrong the atp is a representation of how to make promoters and the ATP rich. It is based on how often one plays.

You see it all started in the corrupt 70's. There were three reanking systems...the atp, the grand pix, and the WCT.

Anyway you could be #1 ranked in one and not the other depending on which circuit you played on. So anyway the three of these circuits got together and said:

"hey lets join forces and make one single outfit called the atp. This way pros will be forced to only play for us and we will all be stinking rich"

So now you have a situation wherein the "ATP" is still exploiting players by giving the incentives to play as many tournaments as humanly possible.....even if it means injuring yourself and ruining your career.

In the end its not about truly ranking the real #1....its about $$$$$$.
 
The rankings are performance based, which is what they should be. Nadal has been the best player thus far this year. I'm not sure that you could even call Roger the second best player even though he's won 2 majors. Djoko has had an excellent year so far. This is just the first half of the year.

The question now becomes what will happen in the second half of the year. Nadal has typically run out gas during the hard court season and indoor season. I believe he netted one title in last half of the year. He expends so much energy early on that doesn't have much left in the tank. His conditioning was put to the test these past two weeks. I hope he does get enough rest to show himself a contender this summer. I would love to see another five set final like yesterday. It was nerve racklingly fun and intense.

Hopefully, Roger will have a more successful second half of the year than first. It's funny that even with Roger's 2 majors he has played his best tennis IMO.
 
MoFed said:
The rankings are performance based, which is what they should be. Nadal has been the best player thus far this year. I'm not sure that you could even call Roger the second best player even though he's won 2 majors. Djoko has had an excellent year so far. This is just the first half of the year.
The question now becomes what will happen in the second half of the year. Nadal has typically run out gas during the hard court season and indoor season. I believe he netted one title in last half of the year. He expends so much energy early on that doesn't have much left in the tank. His conditioning was put to the test these past two weeks. I hope he does get enough rest to show himself a contender this summer. I would love to see another five set final like yesterday. It was nerve racklingly fun and intense.

Hopefully, Roger will have a more successful second half of the year than first. It's funny that even with Roger's 2 majors he has played his best tennis IMO.
Click to expand...

You cannot be serious !!!!!!
Djokovic with 1 Masters Series title better than Federer with 2 Grand Slam titles and a Grand Slam final ??? Are you really a fan of Federer ???

Federer is for me the player of the year. He peaked in the tournaments that counted. He also won the biggest prize of all: Wimbledon. Nadal is second. Djokovic is doing well but doesn't have a major prize. Yet.
 
The reason why Federer will be number 1 even if he loses Wimbledon(even though he didn't :)) is because he has more points for AO, the USO, TMC, and a bunch of other Masters events. He still holds the points for them, Nadal didn't make it as far in those events. Now if Nadal had did what Federer had done last year and Federer does what Nadal did last year, then Nadal will be number 1. There isn't a conspiracy theory on this.
 
rwn said:
You cannot be serious !!!!!!
Djokovic with 1 Masters Series title better than Federer with 2 Grand Slam titles and a Grand Slam final ??? Are you really a fan of Federer ???

Federer is for me the player of the year. He peaked in the tournaments that counted. He also won the biggest prize of all: Wimbledon. Nadal is second. Djokovic is doing well but doesn't have a major prize. Yet.
Click to expand...
Let's face it, with the exception of the majors Roger has not performed as well this year. (Don't get me wrong they are the most important tournaments.) But as far as consistency goes so far this year, it's been Nadal and Djokovic. Yes I am a fan of Roger's but I can admit that Roger has not been playing like himself this year. I can be objective. Can you?

Like I said in the second half of my post, the second half of this year will be telling. I know that the majority of Nadal's win have come on clay, but he did win Indian Wells and got to the semis of Miami. Hopefully, Roger will come back for the summer season refreshed and ready to defend his hardcourt titles.
 
Everyone knows the Grand Slams are the most important tournaments, Fed peaks for them and performs. The rankings also reward the dedication of players who play a lotta tournaments like Davydenko, which is right because he's putting himself out there while others rest up. The results don't lie!
 
MoFed said:
Let's face it, with the exception of the majors Roger has not performed as well this year. (Don't get me wrong they are the most important tournaments.) But as far as consistency goes so far this year, it's been Nadal and Djokovic. Yes I am a fan of Roger's but I can admit that Roger has not been playing like himself this year. I can be objective. Can you?

Like I said in the second half of my post, the second half of this year will be telling. I know that the majority of Nadal's win have come on clay, but he did win Indian Wells and got to the semis of Miami. Hopefully, Roger will come back for the summer season refreshed and ready to defend his hardcourt titles.
Click to expand...

Roger has made the finals of all but three tournaments he has played this year, he's been just as consistent as Nadal and more than Djokovic. Though Novak did get some bad draws and lose early to Fed several times.
 
Breaker said:
Roger has made the finals of all but three tournaments he has played this year, he's been just as consistent as Nadal and more than Djokovic. Though Novak did get some bad draws and lose early to Fed several times.
Click to expand...

Fed is a bad example. Clearly he is the number one player.

But let's say he had lost wimbledon. He still would be number one according to the computer. Do you think that would be right ?
 
Attila the tennis Bum said:
Fed is a bad example. Clearly he is the number one player.

But let's say he had lost wimbledon. He still would be number one according to the computer. Do you think that would be right ?
Click to expand...

I believe it's cumulative performance. He made it to the FO finals, won the AO. If he lost the Wimby finals, YES, I think Fed should still be on top. The previous tournaments from last year still counts. If Nadal beat Fed in the Wimby and again in the USO then Nadal deserves the crown. Fed is consistent. Nadal was nowhere to be seen in the AO. He wasn't as consistent.
 
caulcano said:
Yes. However, if Nadal had won Wimbledon AND the USO then he'd probably be #1.
Click to expand...

Actually incorrect......sort of.

Boris becker won both Wimbledon and the US open in one year and yet Lendl was the year end #1.:confused:

Everyone thought it was ridiculous including Tennis magazine, the NY times and many others.
 
Attila the tennis Bum said:
Actually incorrect......sort of.

Boris becker won both Wimbledon and the US open in one year and yet Lendl was the year end #1.:confused:

Everyone thought it was ridiculous including Tennis magazine, the NY times and many others.
Click to expand...
But he's talking about Nadal, and Nadal's point to defend. Nadal would be #1 if he had defended RG (he did), and won Wimby and USO (defended RU and QF)

I'm not sure about the points. It depends on the performance of Fed at the USO.

USO and TMC is where we're going to see if Nadal can overtake Fed's #1 spot. What was Nadal results at Canada MS and Cincinatti?
 
Let's see... from Wimbledon on:

Nadal defends:

R16 Canada MS
QF Cincinatti MS
QF USO
R16 Stockholm
QF Madrid MS
SF TMC

Federer defends:
Championship Canada MS
R32 Cincinatti MS
Championship USO
Championship Tokyo
Championship Madrid MS
Championship Basel
Championship TMC

Tough task for Fed. He can probably do it again, but Nad and Nole are both hungry guys.

Veeeery interesting year-end! :D
 
Attila the tennis Bum said:
Venus Williams is now the lowest ranked player to ever win Wimbledon. And Sererna gave the #1 Sharapova a tennis lesson at the AO.

Way back when becker won both Wimbledon and the US open in one year and yet Ivan Lendl was ranked the year end #1,

Even today, if Nadal wins Wimbledon the Roger Federer will still be ranked #1 in the world.
Click to expand...


Once again Attila, you have proven to be full of shiit! Take that - Federer won, the last set - wasn't even close. Federer won, and Nadal lost. Federer hs 11 Slams and is one of the greatest of all time. Nadal has only a fraction of grand slams of Federer, so there is no comparison there. Attila - your comments are so duummb!
 
saram said:
I agree that they need to look at how the structure the points. I would like to see the points from the previous year play no impact upon the current year. Defending points just does not make sense to me. Every sport in the world starts the season with everyone even and at zero points.

You are onto something here...we just need to figure it out...
Click to expand...

No your not onto something here...the ranking system works at this point...not sure why people want to take a working system and change it (this isn't the BCS). Regardless of winning or losing Wimby, Federer's results over the previous year should keep him at #1...starting over each year seems like a step backwards...Whose been the best over the previous year seems more accurate to me then who has been the best over an arbitrary number of months, plus it would really screw with seeding for any early tournaments...leave the system...it works...
 
Pancho said:
Once again Attila, you have proven to be full of shiit! Take that - Federer won, the last set - wasn't even close. Federer won, and Nadal lost. Federer hs 11 Slams and is one of the greatest of all time. Nadal has only a fraction of grand slams of Federer, so there is no comparison there. Attila - your comments are so duummb!
Click to expand...

Last set was actually pretty close...Nadal wins any of those 4 break points and Feds in trouble...I had money on Federer and was sweating bullets that those first 4 games as the match was on Nadals racket...
 
dukemunson said:
No your not onto something here...the ranking system works at this point...not sure why people want to take a working system and change it (this isn't the BCS). Regardless of winning or losing Wimby, Federer's results over the previous year should keep him at #1...starting over each year seems like a step backwards...Whose been the best over the previous year seems more accurate to me then who has been the best over an arbitrary number of months, plus it would really screw with seeding for any early tournaments...leave the system...it works...
Click to expand...

Yes exactly. I don't see how people can argue that the current system has people in the wrong places or doesn't work. The players are the important ones and they seem ok with it..
 
dukemunson said:
Last set was actually pretty close...Nadal wins any of those 4 break points and Feds in trouble...I had money on Federer and was sweating bullets that those first 4 games as the match was on Nadals racket...
Click to expand...

yeah, that last set was anything but a blowout. Fed served at 5-40 twice and on one of those break pts., Nadal missed a routine forehand down the line on the right side of the court, ironically very similar to the one Fed nailed to break Nadal in the 5th set. all things considered, very close final set and yes, the break was on Nadal's racket.
 
fps said:
Yes exactly. I don't see how people can argue that the current system has people in the wrong places or doesn't work. The players are the important ones and they seem ok with it..
Click to expand...

simple.

The Williams sisters are the real #1 & 2 players in the world. Yet the rankings do not reflect that.
 
I think that the ranking system is a pretty decent way of creating a ladder for all the players to climb. But I also think there are some issues with it. It doesn't factor in upsets or big matches. I believe that there should be some type of bonus (albeit small -- I'm talking like 50-100 points at MOST) if, let's say a player 50th in the world beats 5th in the world. There should be SOME kind of reward. I think a mathematical formula should be involved, one that factors in the difference in rank and the important of the match (tournament and round -- upsets in the 1st round aren't as worthy as an upset in the 4th round).

Second, I believe that when two top ten's play (Let's say before a semi-final), there should be more points on the line for them. Match ups like these can mean big money for the ATP, and the players should be justly rewarded -- not only for their level of play, but also for having a ridiculous important/huge/doubtful win.

I think these two points should have some factor in the ranking system.
 
when serena won the Australian she was ranked 81. Then she destroyed sharapova the number one player again and she still was not even ranked in the top 20. Something os wrong with that.

The reason the system doesn't work is because it purely mathmatical. Machines cannot understand what is really going on.
 
And why Attila, are the Williams sisters the real No 1 and 2?

Just like the two of them Henin has a Grand Slam win, and a semifinal, plus 4 other titles compared to just 1 each for Serena and Venus. And that is only during 2007, add the US OPEN final 2006 aswell and atleast I (and many with me) think Henin should be number 1.

But I guess it´s better if we have a panel (consisting of the great tennismaster Attilla the tennis bum) who randomly decides who the best player is...
 
zzzbrianxxx said:
I think that the ranking system is a pretty decent way of creating a ladder for all the players to climb. But I also think there are some issues with it. It doesn't factor in upsets or big matches. I believe that there should be some type of bonus (albeit small -- I'm talking like 50-100 points at MOST) if, let's say a player 50th in the world beats 5th in the world. There should be SOME kind of reward. I think a mathematical formula should be involved, one that factors in the difference in rank and the important of the match (tournament and round -- upsets in the 1st round aren't as worthy as an upset in the 4th round).

Second, I believe that when two top ten's play (Let's say before a semi-final), there should be more points on the line for them. Match ups like these can mean big money for the ATP, and the players should be justly rewarded -- not only for their level of play, but also for having a ridiculous important/huge/doubtful win.

I think these two points should have some factor in the ranking system.
Click to expand...

It's interesting, they actually used to do that in the WTA, give "quality points" based on who you beat. It's a reasonable system, IMO.

As for the second part, they DO give extra ranking points for winning a match later on in the tournament - the difference between getting to the second round and losing in the first round is significantly smaller than the difference between getting to the semis and getting to the quarters.
 
Attila the tennis Bum said:
simple.

The Williams sisters are the real #1 & 2 players in the world. Yet the rankings do not reflect that.
Click to expand...

No they aren't...they are in the exact right place they belong to be...them being 1 and 2 turns tennis into a sport like gymnastics or figure skating where a judge decides who's best and who wins...the ranking system works, draws even out over 12 months and people are ranked where they should be. The quality win system works in the juniors but not in the pros...sorry...
 
dukemunson said:
Last set was actually pretty close...Nadal wins any of those 4 break points and Feds in trouble...I had money on Federer and was sweating bullets that those first 4 games as the match was on Nadals racket...
Click to expand...

That's what happens in tennis. Federer had 10 breakpoints in the first set of the French Open final and lost it 6-3. Nadal won all the important points at the French. Federer won all the important points at Wimbledon. A coincidence?? I don't think so.
 
MoFed said:
Let's face it, with the exception of the majors Roger has not performed as well this year. (Don't get me wrong they are the most important tournaments.) But as far as consistency goes so far this year, it's been Nadal and Djokovic. Yes I am a fan of Roger's but I can admit that Roger has not been playing like himself this year. I can be objective. Can you?

Like I said in the second half of my post, the second half of this year will be telling. I know that the majority of Nadal's win have come on clay, but he did win Indian Wells and got to the semis of Miami. Hopefully, Roger will come back for the summer season refreshed and ready to defend his hardcourt titles.
Click to expand...

Federer played 9 tournaments, he reached 6 finals and won 4 titles. That's not consistent enough ???? It seems to me that you're the one who is not objective here. Did you really think Federer would be in the final of every tournament he played until the end of his career ???
Federer had a little form crisis at Indian Wells/Miami (probably thinking too much about the French Open) that's the only difference with previous years.
 
jacob said:
And why Attila, are the Williams sisters the real No 1 and 2?

Just like the two of them Henin has a Grand Slam win, and a semifinal, plus 4 other titles compared to just 1 each for Serena and Venus. And that is only during 2007, add the US OPEN final 2006 aswell and atleast I (and many with me) think Henin should be number 1.

But I guess it´s better if we have a panel (consisting of the great tennismaster Attilla the tennis bum) who randomly decides who the best player is...
Click to expand...

the reason the Williams sisters are the real number one and two players in the world is obvious.

They pretty much can beat anybody. They didnt just beat the computer ranked #1......they destroyed her multiple times
Do you think sharapova is better than either williams' this year?
Do you think the computer is right?
 
Attila the tennis Bum said:
the reason the Williams sisters are the real number one and two players in the world is obvious.

They pretty much can beat anybody. They didnt just beat the computer ranked #1......they destroyed her multiple times
Do you think sharapova is better than either williams' this year?
Do you think the computer is right?
Click to expand...

Well, I agree that Venus has an impressive record against Henin (7-1) but since thier last meeting was back in 2003 I don´t see how that is relevant today. And Serena is 1-2 against Henin in 2007 so I guess Henin can pretty much can beat anyone aswell, infact she has done it on a much more regular basis than either of the Williams sisters.

As for sharapova, her 2007 is probably worse than both of the williams', but her fall of 2006 is very, very good (US OPEN of course the highlight). But since you only think that the most recent results should count, how far back should one go to decide who is number one - one week (than clearly Venus is number one, with Bartoli second), one month (than Henin is a very strong canditate - French Open win, Eastbourne win and Wimbledon semi), six months (I still think Henin, certainly not Serena since AO wouldn´t count) or perhaps a year?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

The Dark Knight
Rankings are b.s. : the Becker Lendl problem repeats itself
2 3 4
Replies
158
Views
12K
NLBwell
N
D
WTA Ranking System - a complete mess!
2 3
Replies
110
Views
13K
Spin Doctor
S
T
What's up with No. 1 ranking for Ivanovic?
Replies
21
Views
2K
rk_sports
rk_sports
N
Yet another example of the silly ranking system (this time ATP)
Replies
3
Views
1K
NadalAgassi
N
Rock Strongo
What is the theoretical largest ranking jump you can make from one tournament?
Replies
12
Views
3K
vive le beau jeu !
vive le beau jeu !
Back
Top