The ranking system is complete B.S.

[93sq.]

Ehm....nadal is 21 and he win only clay tournament..except a MS
Maria is 20...he won on grass,he won usopen...he reached sf in paris and final in melbourne...

Nadal should be no1!?
Maria doesn't!?

Ok...i don't like the ranking system...but you have to realized that rafa is not damaged by this system:he win the same tournaments every year...he "sucks" in the other.
So...if he improve is tennis he will have the opportunity to reach no1:if he keeps on winning on clay...he only has to win tournament on different surfaces to get more points...

 

[pirateofthecarribean]

Venus is the lowest WOMEN'S player to win Wimbledon, right? When Goran won in 2001, he was unseeded.

 

[Andres]

Canada, Madrid, Indian Wells. Those are 3 hardcourts MS
Dubai, indoor hardcourts. USO, Cincinatti and Australian Open QF.
Two Wimbledon finals. TMC SF, on a carpet (despite being listed as indoor hardcourts, Shanghai's was a carpet)

Points isn't only about WINNING the titles... or runner-ups doesn't count anymore?

 

[93sq.]

Venus is the lowest WOMEN'S player to win Wimbledon, right? When Goran won in 2001, he was unseeded.

Yes...he was no125

 

[Attila the tennis Bum]

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?

First of all I never brought up henin. personally dont follow womens tennis enough and I dont know enough to comment about her. I was however using the Williams merely as an example. The fact that they have destroyed the #1 player (sharapova) at the time maria should count for a lot.

Secondly I think the best example is Boris becker. In one year he won both the US open and Wimbledon and was ranked #2 at year end. How on earth can you possibly defend that?

Finally I never said the most recent results should count. I merely suggested that the current system does not work because in many instances it does not reveal the true number one. Its only a machine.

In no other sport do you have a situation where a machine decided who the best player or the champion is. The reason is because they either have a superbowl, world series , stanley cup. Why should tennis be any different than every other sport on the face of the planet?

In tennis our world series are the grand slams. Who ever wins the most grand slams in one year should be the #1 player in the world. Boris Becker should have been the #1 player simply because he won the most grandslams in one year (US open & Wimbledon). End of story.

 

[Andres]

First of all I never brought up henin. personally dont follow womens tennis enough and I dont know enough to comment about her. I was however using the Williams merely as an example. The fact that they have destroyed the #1 player (sharapova) at the time maria should count for a lot.

Secondly I think the best example is Boris becker. In one year he won both the US open and Wimbledon and was ranked #2 at year end. How on earth can you possibly defend that?

Finally I never said the most recent results should count. I merely suggested that the current system does not work because in many instances it does not reveal the true number one. Its only a machine.

In no other sport do you have a situation where a machine decided who the best player or the champion is. The reason is because they either have a superbowl, world series , stanley cup. Why should tennis be any different than every other sport on the face of the planet?

In tennis our world series are the grand slams. Who ever wins the most grand slams in one year should be the #1 player in the world. Boris Becker should have been the #1 player simply because he won the most grandslams in one year (US open & Wimbledon). End of story.

You're forgetting the other two slams, the Masters Cup, and other big tournaments.

 

[Andres]

Let's make it better. Let's find out the points for that particular year, and did he defend, so you have to reason to argue anymore, right?

Be right back in 5 minutes

 

[Attila the tennis Bum]

Let's make it better. Let's find out the points for that particular year, and did he defend, so you have to reason to argue anymore, right?

Be right back in 5 minutes

sorry I dont get what you are saying.

 

[Attila the tennis Bum]

You're forgetting the other two slams, the Masters Cup, and other big tournaments.

Thats my point. they should not matter. They take away from the "Super bowl" of tennis" : The grand slams.

We have to have a championship just like every other sport. Hockey,Baseball, football, Soccer......they all have a deciding "tornament".

Could you imagine if the Yankees won the world series but were not considered the champions because Boston had a better record during the year?

Only in tennis do we have this insane formulation where a machine decides who the #1 is. It just doesnt work.

 

[Andres]

Becker in 1989 won Paris Indoor, Philadelphia, US Open, Wimbledon. Runner up at Masters, Monte Carlo.
In 1988, he won Dallas WCT, Indian Wells, Indianapolis, London / Queen's Club, Masters, Stockholm, Tokyo Indoor, and runner up at Wimbledon.

That means, he didn't defend all the points from the titles/finals from last year, despite winning two slams. His points dropped. 7 titles and one final, against 4 titles and 2 finals.

Ivan Lendl was year end #1 in 1989. In 1989, he won Australian Open, Bordeaux, Forest Hills, Hamburg, Key Biscayne, London / Queen's Club, Montreal / Toronto, Scottsdale, Stockholm, Sydney Indoor, and was runner up at Tokyo Outdoor, US Open. 10 titles, two finals.

In 1988, he won Monte Carlo, Montreal / Toronto, Rome and was runner up at Masters, US Open. 3 titles, two finals

So, Lendl came from 3 titles and two finals to 10 titles and two finals. Improved his season by 7 titles. Including winning a GS where he wasnt even runner up the year before, and defended his final at the USO.

Becker didnt defend his points.

The system works.

 

[Andres]

Thats my point. they should not matter. They take away from the "Super bowl" of tennis" : The grand slams.

We have to have a championship just like every other sport. Hockey,Baseball, football, Soccer......they all have a deciding "tornament".

Could you imagine if the Yankees won the world series but were not considered the champions because Boston had a better record during the year?

Only in tennis do we have this insane formulation where a machine decides who the #1 is. It just doesnt work.

You're considering TEAM sports, without yearly rankings. Until the season is over, no team was ranked above the other. There was no ranking until the playoffs.

Different sports, different rankings. Your whole theory is invalid.

 

[caulcano]

simple.

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

You fool.

The #1 ranking is a reflection on how a player has performed over 12 months. The Williams sisters haven't performed well AND played that many tournaments in 12 months.

It's not about how good they are/were, otherwise Serena will always #1 until she retires which is absurd.

 

[Hops]

Thats my point. they should not matter. They take away from the "Super bowl" of tennis" : The grand slams.

We have to have a championship just like every other sport. Hockey,Baseball, football, Soccer......they all have a deciding "tornament".

Could you imagine if the Yankees won the world series but were not considered the champions because Boston had a better record during the year?

Only in tennis do we have this insane formulation where a machine decides who the #1 is. It just doesnt work.

you are arguing that tournaments outside the slams have no value in determining a player's worth. They do have value, just not as much as the slams. If you really believe they have no value, in essence you are saying all non-slams are merely exhibitions. Why then should the players put forth any effort at non-slams? Why should people pay money to see them play? Taken to its logical conclusion your worldview would cause the collapse of the tennis tours. Is that what you want?

making an analogy to team sports is invalid because hey, guess what, professional tennis is not set up the same way, with one season and one championship. You're not very bright, are you.

 

[Andres]

Thats my point. they should not matter. They take away from the "Super bowl" of tennis" : The grand slams.

No, they do not! Your logic makes no sense!
Since ever, the have been different tourneys, with different points, prize money, and importance.

Winning the 9 Master Series in one year, is still a little bit better than winning the four grand slams. That's how it is, and that's how it's been for years. And that doesn't include the Year-End Masters Cup

And makes sense, you have to win around twice... the ammount of matches than the GS.

 

[jacob]

First of all I never brought up henin. personally dont follow womens tennis enough and I dont know enough to comment about her. I was however using the Williams merely as an example. The fact that they have destroyed the #1 player (sharapova) at the time maria should count for a lot.

Secondly I think the best example is Boris becker. In one year he won both the US open and Wimbledon and was ranked #2 at year end. How on earth can you possibly defend that?

Finally I never said the most recent results should count. I merely suggested that the current system does not work because in many instances it does not reveal the true number one. Its only a machine.

In no other sport do you have a situation where a machine decided who the best player or the champion is. The reason is because they either have a superbowl, world series , stanley cup. Why should tennis be any different than every other sport on the face of the planet?

In tennis our world series are the grand slams. Who ever wins the most grand slams in one year should be the #1 player in the world. Boris Becker should have been the #1 player simply because he won the most grandslams in one year (US open & Wimbledon). End of story.

Well, when you said that Serena and Venus were clearly no 1 and 2, you must think they are better than Henin, who right now is the number one?

Thats why I brought her up and I think I showed you why she should be ranked above the both of them.

And if only the Grand Slams should matter, why then are the williams' clearly no 1 and 2? Henin and Sharapova also have one each right now.

 

[Hops]

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.

the machines understand perfectly what is going on. And that is the Williams sisters cannot stay healthy enough, or motivated enough, to play a normal season.

To use a baseball analogy that actually works, if there was a vote taken on the mid-season AL MVP, ARod (the other one) would be a logical choice. But let's say that hammy is worse than feared (he didn't look so good running the bases last night). And he's out the rest of the year. Would you still vote him for MVP? After all, he proved he's the best ... but only for half the year.

Part of the deal in proving yourself as an athlete is staying fit enough to participate in the competition. Venus proved she was the best grass player over the past two weeks. She has not proven she can translate that over an entire year.

 

[MoFed]

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.

I don't care if he reaches every final of every tournament he plays in. It's just that he hasn't been playing like himself at any of the tournaments he's entered. He's been shanking the ball a lot more and his forehand has been off. With that I still say his form has been a bit off this year. Not in match wins, but in his form on the court.

As for consistancy, I stand corrected.

 

[Attila the tennis Bum]

Well, when you said that Serena and Venus were clearly no 1 and 2, you must think they are better than Henin, who right now is the number one?

Thats why I brought her up and I think I showed you why she should be ranked above the both of them.

And if only the Grand Slams should matter, why then are the williams' clearly no 1 and 2? Henin and Sharapova also have one each right now.

The system does work sometimes. For example Fed is clearly the #1 by any system on earth.

However, its interesting that you have no answer to the Boris becker situation. Do you think that its right that he won both the US open and Wimbledon and yet did not finish as the #1?

The same exact situation would have happened this year. if Nadal would have won the FO and Wimby he would still be #2! . How is that possible???? Obviously there must be something wrong.

In no other sport does this situation exist. For example in baseball you have your standings and they do count for placement in the penant and world series; however it is still the world series that determines who is the champion regardless of their records during the year. Why should tennis be run differently than every single other sport?

 

[Hops]

The same exact situation would have happened this year. if Nadal would have won the FO and Wimby he would still be #2! . How is that possible???? Obviously there must be something wrong.

the only thing wrong is your lack of intelligence

 

[Attila the tennis Bum]

the only thing wrong is your lack of intelligence

wow...those are words of wisdom. I guess when you have no answer you have to resort to crap like that.

 

[Hops]

wow...those are words of wisdom. I guess when you have no answer you have to resort to crap like that.

what else am I supposed to think? your apparent confusion that Nadal wouldn't be #1 if he won Wimbledon, even given your slam fundamentalism, shows that you don't understand that the rankings are over the last 52 weeks (hint: Roger has two slams also).

So, it's either willful ignorance, or stupidity. take your pick.

 

[Andres]

The system does work sometimes. For example Fed is clearly the #1 by any system on earth.

However, its interesting that you have no answer to the Boris becker situation. Do you think that its right that he won both the US open and Wimbledon and yet did not finish as the #1?

The same exact situation would have happened this year. if Nadal would have won the FO and Wimby he would still be #2! . How is that possible???? Obviously there must be something wrong.

In no other sport does this situation exist. For example in baseball you have your standings and they do count for placement in the penant and world series; however it is still the world series that determines who is the champion regardless of their records during the year. Why should tennis be run differently than every single other sport?

I already answered the Becker situation. Check my posting. Ahh, don't bother, I'll re post it here so you can see it without moving your eyes more than one inch

 

[Andres]

Becker in 1989 won Paris Indoor, Philadelphia, US Open, Wimbledon. Runner up at Masters, Monte Carlo.
In 1988, he won Dallas WCT, Indian Wells, Indianapolis, London / Queen's Club, Masters, Stockholm, Tokyo Indoor, and runner up at Wimbledon.

That means, he didn't defend all the points from the titles/finals from last year, despite winning two slams. His points dropped. 7 titles and one final, against 4 titles and 2 finals.

Ivan Lendl was year end #1 in 1989. In 1989, he won Australian Open, Bordeaux, Forest Hills, Hamburg, Key Biscayne, London / Queen's Club, Montreal / Toronto, Scottsdale, Stockholm, Sydney Indoor, and was runner up at Tokyo Outdoor, US Open. 10 titles, two finals.

In 1988, he won Monte Carlo, Montreal / Toronto, Rome and was runner up at Masters, US Open. 3 titles, two finals

So, Lendl came from 3 titles and two finals to 10 titles and two finals. Improved his season by 7 titles. Including winning a GS where he wasnt even runner up the year before, and defended his final at the USO.

Becker didnt defend his points.

The system works.

You're considering TEAM sports, without yearly rankings. Until the season is over, no team was ranked above the other. There was no ranking until the playoffs.

Different sports, different rankings. Your whole theory is invalid.

No, they do not! Your logic makes no sense!
Since ever, the have been different tourneys, with different points, prize money, and importance.

Winning the 9 Master Series in one year, is still a little bit better than winning the four grand slams. That's how it is, and that's how it's been for years. And that doesn't include the Year-End Masters Cup

And makes sense, you have to win around twice... the ammount of matches than the GS.

There. Fest your eyes
Of course, you'll somehow reply to this. And there's nothing we can do about it. Your logic makes no sense. The system works, and the ATP doesn't care what Attila thinks about their system. The other 99.999987% of the people who care about the sport don't complain about the ranking.

That's why you have a Race, and an Entry ranking. Nadal is clearly #1 in this year, but Fed has out-played him in the past 52 weeks.

Deal with it. If Rafa plays like this until the end of the year, he can finish the race #1, and most lilkely, the entry ranking as well.

 

[skip1969]

...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...

correct. i think the 52-week system works for tennis cos there is no off-season/close-season. so the 'season' starts every week, so to speak. what counts are your results from the year, as of today.

in other pro sports that have been mentioned, you have a regular season and then some sort of deciding play-off. but often, the so-called 'best' team (in the regular season) does not go on to win the championship. happens all the time, actually. that doesn't negate the achievements of the team with the best record. but the big prize goes to the play-off winner, and that's all anyone cares about. sort of makes regular seasons a waste of time in a way (which is sad cos they last soooo long in the states).

in tennis, every week counts for something, whether you play or decide not to.

 

[jacob]

The system does work sometimes. For example Fed is clearly the #1 by any system on earth.

However, its interesting that you have no answer to the Boris becker situation. Do you think that its right that he won both the US open and Wimbledon and yet did not finish as the #1?

The same exact situation would have happened this year. if Nadal would have won the FO and Wimby he would still be #2! . How is that possible???? Obviously there must be something wrong.

In no other sport does this situation exist. For example in baseball you have your standings and they do count for placement in the penant and world series; however it is still the world series that determines who is the champion regardless of their records during the year. Why should tennis be run differently than every single other sport?

OK, will leave out the the WTA for now since it appears you actually agree with me that Henin should be number 1 (although i´m not sure you do).

On the Becker issue I refer you to Andreas answer, I think 10 titles (including one slam) is better than 2 slams (and just 4 titles overall), so yes I think it´s right that Lendl finished first. If only the slams should matter, whats the point with all the other tournaments?

And I, just like Hops, wonder why Nadal should be number one if he´d won? They both would have had two slams each!

 

[Attila the tennis Bum]

what else am I supposed to think? your apparent confusion that Nadal wouldn't be #1 if he won Wimbledon, even given your slam fundamentalism, shows that you don't understand that the rankings are over the last 52 weeks (hint: Roger has two slams also).

So, it's either willful ignorance, or stupidity. take your pick.

actually you are wrong Einstein. Accroding to my hypothetical I said if nadal won both the FO and Wimby he would still be #2.

Now you need to use just a little decutive reasoning here. That would mean that if nadal won wimby fed would have lost it. I know its a stretch but just try and stick withe me here.

That would mean that Fed would only have one grandslam (ao) while nadal would have 2 (fo & wimby= 2 grand slams). Get it??

Now how would the rankings be correct in that situation?

 

[Attila the tennis Bum]

There. Fest your eyes
Of course, you'll somehow reply to this. And there's nothing we can do about it. Your logic makes no sense. The system works, and the ATP doesn't care what Attila thinks about their system. The other 99.999987% of the people who care about the sport don't complain about the ranking.

That's why you have a Race, and an Entry ranking. Nadal is clearly #1 in this year, but Fed has out-played him in the past 52 weeks.

Deal with it. If Rafa plays like this until the end of the year, he can finish the race #1, and most lilkely, the entry ranking as well.

No my logic makes complete sense. You see Becker won TWO grand slams (US open & Wimbledon) and beat Lendl !!! Lendl on the other hand only won one grand slam (the FO)....yet Lendl got the #1 ranking!!!! How is that fair?????

In fact most of the world actually disagreed with the computer system. Including Tennis mag and most experts. Run a google search and you will see. The system just does not work.

In Feds case it does work because he is undisputably the #1 but in the Becker situation or the Williams situation it clearly is not correct.

 

[Hops]

actually you are wrong Einstein. Accroding to my hypothetical I said if nadal won both the FO and Wimby he would still be #2.

Now you need to use just a little decutive reasoning here. That would mean that if nadal won wimby fed would have lost it. I know its a stretch but just try and stick withe me here.

That would mean that Fed would only have one grandslam (ao) while nadal would have 2 (fo & wimby= 2 grand slams). Get it??

Now how would the rankings be correct in that situation?

Fed would still have ... two slams. USO is still part of the rankings.

try and do some research before you start mouthing off. it's embarrassing.

 

[jacob]

OK, I will try one last time before I give up.

Federer, if he lost, would still have the US Open from 2006. So that means both Nadal and Federer have two slams each. Why then, should Nadal be no 1?

And I ask you again - what have the williams sisters achieved the last couple of months, during 2007, or during these last 52 weeks to warrant a place ahead of Henin, the current number one?! Please explain.

 

[Attila the tennis Bum]

OK, I will try one last time before I give up.
Federer, if he lost, would still have the US Open from 2006. So that means both Nadal and Federer have two slams each. Why then, should Nadal be no 1?
.

OMG....but we are in 2007!!! we are talking about 2007...holy crap!! In my hypo Fed would only have one grandslam (the AO) and Nadal would have two (FO & Wimby)...yet in 2007 Fed would still be ranked number one. Holy crap you are so dense.

 

[charlottefromca]

The rankings system is fine the way it is. Period.

Numbers don't lie.

And how can you not take into account last years performance???!? Then how would we have rankings points in the Australian open and earlier tournaments.

 

[fps]

actually you are wrong Einstein. Accroding to my hypothetical I said if nadal won both the FO and Wimby he would still be #2.

Now you need to use just a little decutive reasoning here. That would mean that if nadal won wimby fed would have lost it. I know its a stretch but just try and stick withe me here.

That would mean that Fed would only have one grandslam (ao) while nadal would have 2 (fo & wimby= 2 grand slams). Get it??

Now how would the rankings be correct in that situation?

Haha the deductive reasoning bit killed me, first misspelling deductive, then then taking 2 away from 4 and getting 1. Is there a way to put a completely hypothetical forumite on an ignore list?

 

[Attila the tennis Bum]

Haha the deductive reasoning bit killed me, first misspelling deductive, then then taking 2 away from 4 and getting 1. Is there a way to put a completely hypothetical forumite on an ignore list?

Hey dude gimme a break ...I am typing with my new Iphone using my thumbs.

 

[Attila the tennis Bum]

The rankings system is fine the way it is. Period.

Numbers don't lie.

And how can you not take into account last years performance???!? Then how would we have rankings points in the Australian open and earlier tournaments.

Because it was last year. Every year should start from zero. Its a brand new year so everyone should get a brand new slate....like in every other sport.

Bottom line...even if Nadal had won Wimby he would be ranked #2...how you think that is fair is just beyond me.

 

[charlottefromca]

I don't get it.. wouldn't Roger still have his 2006 US open crown.. so he would still be the current champion for TWO grandslams.

 

[charlottefromca]

Because it was last year. Every year should start from zero. Its a brand new year so everyone should get a brand new slate....like in every other sport.

Bottom line...even if Nadal had won Wimby he would be ranked #2...how you think that is fair is just beyond me.

That makes no sense.. how would we have ANY ranking then in the australian if we all start from zero!

 

[anchorsteamer]

OMG....but we are in 2007!!! we are talking about 2007...holy crap!! In my hypo Fed would only have one grandslam (the AO) and Nadal would have two (FO & Wimby)...yet in 2007 Fed would still be ranked number one. Holy crap you are so dense.

The quality win system doesn't work, nor could it work. Are you honestly suggesting that if somebody beats someone 6-1, 6-1 they should get more credit then beating someone 6-3 in the third? Are you trying to turn tennis into a subjective sport? The ranking system works because tennis is a year round sport with a ton of tournaments. Grandslams have been designated as the biggest tournaments (most points) but in order to keep people playing all year there has to be other tournaments (that much you have to agree with, right?). As such, the other tournament must have a value, and as such they must count towards ranking. The ranking then becomes a system that determines who has been the best over the previous year. Not over the previous week or month, over the previous year. As such it wouldn't have mattered if Nadal had won Wimbledon, by virtue of the years results (not to mention the hypothetical runner up result at Wimby) Federer would still have won more rounds and tournaments over the year then Nadal, and thus have the higher ranking. The system works...Venus and Serena, while playing at the highest level when they want, deserve the rankings they are at because they dont play often or with any consistency.

 

[Hops]

That makes no sense.. how would we have ANY ranking then in the australian if we all start from zero!

Attila is trolling. that's the only possibility at this point.

 

[fps]

Hey dude gimme a break ...I am typing with my new Iphone using my thumbs.

Hehe sorry but no way! You were being arrogant and condescending as hell and you got it completely wrong!

 

[Attila the tennis Bum]

The quality win system doesn't work, nor could it work. Are you honestly suggesting that if somebody beats someone 6-1, 6-1 they should get more credit then beating someone 6-3 in the third? Are you trying to turn tennis into a subjective sport? The ranking system works because tennis is a year round sport with a ton of tournaments. Grandslams have been designated as the biggest tournaments (most points) but in order to keep people playing all year there has to be other tournaments (that much you have to agree with, right?). As such, the other tournament must have a value, and as such they must count towards ranking. The ranking then becomes a system that determines who has been the best over the previous year. Not over the previous week or month, over the previous year. As such it wouldn't have mattered if Nadal had won Wimbledon, by virtue of the years results (not to mention the hypothetical runner up result at Wimby) Federer would still have won more rounds and tournaments over the year then Nadal, and thus have the higher ranking. The system works...Venus and Serena, while playing at the highest level when they want, deserve the rankings they are at because they dont play often or with any consistency.

Let me answer you with Three questions:

1. Do you think it was fair that even though Boris Becker won both the US open and Wimbledon and he beat the #1 player Lendl...that Boris Becker did not receive the number one ranking?

2. do you think that it was fair that Boris Becker with all of his grand slams and hall of fame entry and possibly one of the ten greatest players of all time never was ranked number 1 by years end?

3. If Nadal would have won both wimbeldon and the FO do you think that he would have deserved to be #1?

 

[Attila the tennis Bum]

That makes no sense.. how would we have ANY ranking then in the australian if we all start from zero!

Now that a good point. The answer is simple. The AO should be moved to the summer time like all the other grand slams.

 

[naffi]

Basically, especially on the women's tour, players can affect their ranking by how much they play, and not so much who they beat. That's how Hingis was able to hold on to No. 1 for so long. It's why Anna Chakvetadze is in the top 10. She's never beaten a top 10 player. (Sorry, Patty Schnyder doesn't count to me.) But she's played 45 matches this year. That's the flaw. You shouldn't be able to hold on to a high rank if you play all the time and don't beat anyone ranked above you.

http://www.tenniswithattitude.blogspot.com

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?

 

[jacob]

Attila//

Yeah, I´m the one being dense...

I´ll leave it to the others on these boards to decide that one.

I will not post in this stupid thread anymore, good luck convincing the others that only the slams matter, and whoever wins the first one each year (and by the way, hows moving the AO gonna change anything? Who would be no 1 for the first months of the year seeing as nothing but the slams matter?) is the true no 1 in the world. You can´t convince me, that for sure.

 

[Bassus]

Because it was last year. Every year should start from zero. Its a brand new year so everyone should get a brand new slate....like in every other sport.

Bottom line...even if Nadal had won Wimby he would be ranked #2...how you think that is fair is just beyond me.

Tennis needs a ranking system that carries over from one year to the next if for no other reason than seeding purposes. How would you start the year w/o one? And what if a top player like Federer or Nadal had to skip the Aus Open next year. Do you really think they would not still be the top two players in the world?

The ATP has addressed this problem with the adoption of the annual points race. It is a separate ranking to give an idea of who has had the better year. What else do you want? It is an excellent indicator of the type of year one has had, but you can't possibly use it for seeding.

 

[Bassus]

Now that a good point. The answer is simple. The AO should be moved to the summer time like all the other grand slams.

Isn't it played in the summer already?

 

[pow]

The ranking system is not opinion based and it shouldn't be. If someone beats the world's #1 doesn't mean they should overtake their position. You must go through and earn/defend as many points as everyone else. Do you even know how the ranking system works? It makes perfect sense why Federer is still number 1.

Example: Just because Bartoli beat Henin in one match, doesn't place her at a higher position than Henin. One match is insignificant in the grand scheme of things when you count how far Henin has gone in the other events.

In Fed's case, he also has more points than Nadal considering Nadal had weak year end results while Fed won back to back tournaments right before winning TMC. He also holds USO champion points. Nadal improved some results this year by winning Indian Wells and going farther in some of his events. He did lose his Dubai points to Federer this year. So if you add it up... you should get the idea.

 

[Bassus]

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.

What???

Federer has been inconsistent only compared to his own impossibly high standards of 2006. Compared to last year, Federer slipped on the spring hard court season, but before and after it has been fairly equal. He won the Aus both years. He won Dubai this year after losing in the final last year. He broke even at Monte Carlo, fell short at Rome, but made up for that at Hamburg. He broke even at the French and Wimbledon.

The consistency award for 2007 up to this point is between Nadal and Federer, not Djokovic

 

[GrassCourtFan]

Becker in 1989 won Paris Indoor, Philadelphia, US Open, Wimbledon. Runner up at Masters, Monte Carlo.
In 1988, he won Dallas WCT, Indian Wells, Indianapolis, London / Queen's Club, Masters, Stockholm, Tokyo Indoor, and runner up at Wimbledon.

That means, he didn't defend all the points from the titles/finals from last year, despite winning two slams. His points dropped. 7 titles and one final, against 4 titles and 2 finals.

Ivan Lendl was year end #1 in 1989. In 1989, he won Australian Open, Bordeaux, Forest Hills, Hamburg, Key Biscayne, London / Queen's Club, Montreal / Toronto, Scottsdale, Stockholm, Sydney Indoor, and was runner up at Tokyo Outdoor, US Open. 10 titles, two finals.

In 1988, he won Monte Carlo, Montreal / Toronto, Rome and was runner up at Masters, US Open. 3 titles, two finals

So, Lendl came from 3 titles and two finals to 10 titles and two finals. Improved his season by 7 titles. Including winning a GS where he wasnt even runner up the year before, and defended his final at the USO.

Becker didnt defend his points.

The system works.

Defending the points is irrelevant, is it not? What matters is what he won, not whether the things he won that year were the same things he won last year (defended) or different ones.

Or was defending points worth more than winning them in the first place back then? If I remember correctly, they did change around the ranking system at some point in the 90s, though I could be making that up.

What is more relevant is the comparison of titles won and finals - 10 and 2 for Lendl, 4-2 for Becker. If most of those "extra 6" were big enough tournaments then I can see how Lendl wound up ahead.

 

[pow]

What???

Federer has been inconsistent only compared to his own impossibly high standards of 2006. Compared to last year, Federer slipped on the spring hard court season, but before and after it has been fairly equal. He won the Aus both years. He won Dubai this year after losing in the final last year. He broke even at Monte Carlo, fell short at Rome, but made up for that at Hamburg. He broke even at the French and Wimbledon.

The consistency award for 2007 up to this point is between Nadal and Federer, not Djokovic

I agree, but Djokovic is grabbing points left and right like there's no tomorrow.

 

[anchorsteamer]

Let me answer you with Three questions:

1. Do you think it was fair that even though Boris Becker won both the US open and Wimbledon and he beat the #1 player Lendl...that Boris Becker did not receive the number one ranking?

2. do you think that it was fair that Boris Becker with all of his grand slams and hall of fame entry and possibly one of the ten greatest players of all time never was ranked number 1 by years end?

3. If Nadal would have won both wimbeldon and the FO do you think that he would have deserved to be #1?

1) Yes. It was perfectly fair, for the simple reason that the ranking system is not biased. People who consistently achieve the most over a given year are rewarded, and those that don't...aren't. Lendl won 10 tournaments to Beckers 4, yes he beat Lendl but why should he get extra points for only doing well several weeks out of the year compared to Lendl's full season? What you are not understanding is that the system you are proposing is not only ridiculous...but completely unfair...

2) YES!!!!! A hall of fame career and grandslam victories dont earn you or deserve you the #1 ranking...you earn and deserve the #1 ranking by winning week in and week out, something he wasn't able to do consistently enough to warrant that #1 ranking.

3) No. The only person that deserves to be #1 is the person with the most points. If Nadal wins Wimby then he has 2 Grand Slams (FO, Wimby) to Fed's 2 (US OPEN, Aussie). Federer finaled the only grandslam he lost (FO) and under this supposition would have finaled Wimbledon as well. This means that both players have 2 grandslams with federer having finaled the two he didnt win and Nadal tossing in two quarterfinal losses...HOW COULD THAT POSSIBLY JUSTIFY HIM JUMPING OVER FEDERER???