The ranking system is complete B.S.

[Albinoswordfish]

I do agree that the ranking system we have right now is at it's best. You see there are so many clay court tournaments out there and so little grass court tournaments it allows players good on clay courts to dominant the rankings. I think there should be a maximum allowed tournament point count on one type of surface. I don't mean to put Nadal down but if there weren't so many clay court tournaments he wouldn't have as much points, but I think he would still be number 2. Now if there were like 4 master shield grass tournaments Federer would be #1 by far, even farther than it is now.

Is it fair that Nadal is going to get even more points by playing another clay tournament this year?

 

[caulcano]

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.

For you just ignore the ATP Rankings, instead look at the ATP race.

Btw, Federer is ranked #1 in July 2007 (in my book).

 

[Andres]

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's the Race. You have an ENTIIIIIIIIIIRE different ranking so you can drool and fest your eyes in it. And look at that! Nadal is #1 !!! Nadal had, so far, a better year than Fed.

Happy now? You have your own ranking with Nadal #1. Ahora andá a llorarle a Gardel, y a la Iglesia

 

[Andres]

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.

In 2007, Federer made it to 3 GS finals. Nadal only two.
Federer won 2 of them. Nadal only 1.

Let's add some hypothetical points:

Fed 2007: W, F, W
Nadal 2007, QF, W, F

1000 + 700 + 1000 = 2700 (Federer 2007)
250 + 1000 + 700 = 1950 (Nadal 2007)

Your scenario:

Fed AtB 2007: W, F, F
Nad AtB 2007: QF, W, W

1000 + 700 + 700 = 2400 (Federer 2007 if Nadal won Wimbledon)
250 + 1000 + 1000 = 2250 (Nadal 2007 with Wimbledon)

Count the points. Federer still had the better year, if only Grand Slams count (like you want to make it look)

Should I go any further, or did I prove my point already?
Even if Nadal won 2 GS, "GS wise" Federer has the better year

 

[Andres]

Well... Attila didn't reply to the thread at all. I wonder why is that...
Can I say OWNED ?

(And this comes from a guy who DOESN'T like Federer but, for a change, is an objetive tennis fan)

 

[Alexandros]

I'll add another shot Andres:

they should do what wimbledon does. A panel of experts votes on the true number one.

Do you even have half a clue what you are talking about? There is no Wimbldeon panel that decides anything. They use a formula (50% grass court results for past two years and 50% current ATP ranking).

 

[pow]

That's the ATP race you're asking for not the rankings system. If everyone starts at 0 at the beginning of every year, how does any #1 player keep their streak going? If you made the winner of the first tournament of the year #1 in the world, now that, would be unfair.

 

[The tennis guy]

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.

Did you watch Australia Open this year? He beat Djokovic, Roddick so bad, he wasn't playing like himself?

 

[Shabazza]

Why respond to a thread of someone who displayed time and time again that his cognitive skills are at a level of someone in grade-school, at best.
Attila the tennis Bum, a poor soul. What a pitty.

 

[rwn]

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.

OK. But it's very possible that Federer is more motivated for the grand slam tournaments now. He played his best tennis in those three tournaments. He beat Djokovic, Roddick and Gonzalez at the AO for instance in straight sets. Another example: Federer's serve at Wimbledon was amazing. He basically served Safin and Gasquet off the court. He also had a better winner/unforced error percentage in the Wimbledon final than last year. So I don't see much problems with Federer's form this year.

 

[rwn]

Did you watch Australia Open this year? He beat Djokovic, Roddick so bad, he wasn't playing like himself?

Federer lost 5 sets last year at the Australian Open. He had very tough matches with Haas and Davydenko. The form was a lot better this year at the AO. This only shows how soon people forget.

There was a lot of talk after the AO last year that Federer was in decline, the others were catching him and more. And now after one 5-set match people are saying the same thing again.

 

[MoFed]

Yes I did watch AO. He did come out and play there very well. But since he played Dubai he was a little off. I'm not saying that he hasn't had the results, because he has. I think the weight of history has been playing it's part in his mind since Australia. Now that the French and Wimbledon are over he will relax and not shank so many balls and his forehand will be more consistant.

 

[MoFed]

OK. But it's very possible that Federer is more motivated for the grand slam tournaments now. He played his best tennis in those three tournaments. He beat Djokovic, Roddick and Gonzalez at the AO for instance in straight sets. Another example: Federer's serve at Wimbledon was amazing. He basically served Safin and Gasquet off the court. He also had a better winner/unforced error percentage in the Wimbledon final than last year. So I don't see much problems with Federer's form this year.

That's true, he probably is more motivated in the slams. He's been in the finals of all three slams. He played the final of Wimbledon wonderfully. It was honestly the best tennis I'd seen him play all year. I know he murderlized Roddick in the semis of AO and beat Gonzalez handily, but the Wimby final he showed a lot of heart and had dig deep to come through with a win. The finals was an excellent service display and he didn't shank as many balls as he had since Dubai.

 

[Attila the tennis Bum]

I'll add another shot Andres:



Do you even have half a clue what you are talking about? There is no Wimbldeon panel that decides anything. They use a formula (50% grass court results for past two years and 50% current ATP ranking).

Where did you get that from?

 

[Andres]

Where did you get that from?

Wimbledon.org.

They don't have an expert panel deciding the seeds, get your facts straight. They have a mathematical formula, which adds the ATP Entry points + grasscourt results in the last 12 months + grasscourts results of the 12 months before that

 

[Attila the tennis Bum]

Wimbledon.org.

They don't have an expert panel deciding the seeds, get your facts straight. They have a mathematical formula, which adds the ATP Entry points + grasscourt results in the last 12 months + grasscourts results of the 12 months before that

I went to wimbledon.org and I dont see what you are talking about. Why don't you cut and paste it unless of course you just made it up.

 

[Andres]

Gentlemen's Singles Seeding at Wimbledon

The seeds are the top 32 players on the ATP Entry System Position (ESP), BUT then rearranged on a surface-based system. A seeding committee is not required for the Gentlemen’s Singles since the seeding order is determined using an objective and transparent system to reflect more accurately an individual player’s grass court achievements: The formula is:

· Take ESP points at 18 June 2007
· Add 100% points earned for all grass court tournaments in the past 12 months
· Add 75% points earned for best grass court tournament in the 12 months before that.

http://www.wimbledon.org/en_GB/news/articles/2007-06-20/200706201182331054843.html

Took me 2 minutes to find it.

 

[Attila the tennis Bum]

Actually you are right but only recently. In the past Wimbledon did use a panel and only recently changed to a surface based ranking system. This simply proves my point even more!!!

Because of you I found an article from tennis week that also criticizes the current system and says the new sytem at Wimbledon should be followed.:

"Arguments against strictly following the rankings are:


The majors are run by the ITF, not the ATP and WTA. The pro tours administer the rankings, not the ITF.

The surfaces and conditions are different at each of the majors. While the majors are contested on surfaces similar to those events played throughout the year, the current tennis calendar allows for a relatively short build up to each major (Australia has two weeks of competition prior, Paris has six weeks of clay, Wimbledon only two weeks of grass, and the U.S. Open has six weeks of hard court play). Results on one surface don’t necessarily indicate success on another.

The majors are well, "majors." They are much more important in tennis than all the other tour events. Their status, prestige, and historical significance makes them stand out. The evolution of the game has centered around the four majors for nearly 100 years. Players prepare and peak for the majors (and not for Acapulco, Bastad, Charleston, Dubai, Estoril, Frankfurt, etc. etc. etc.). The majors should have the ability to deviate from the computer rankings, and not be beholden to the pro tour’s system for assigning points and ratings.

The majors ought to do everything they can to showcase their event and the best players in the sport. A revised method of seeding is not the same as fixing the draw. Matches still must be played. And the competitive nature of the sport will mean upsets will still occur.
All ranking points shouldn’t be equal! But they are. The current ranking system allows players to earn points based on results in the preceding 52 weeks. A ranking is a reflection of a year’s worth of tournament results. Going into the French Open, the points garnered from a tournament win the previous year on grass or last summer’s hard court season count equally (assuming the same tournament status designated by the ATP/WTA Tours) as a tournament win on clay in the weeks preceding Paris. Momentum can be a serious factor in determining the outcome of a major. I believe that recent success on the surface of the upcoming Slam should count for more when considering seeding. Not results that are nearly a year old and contested on a different surface.

Past performance at a specific major can be a large predictor of future success at that event. Some players just perform better on the big stage, or at certain events.

Historically, Wimbledon was the only major that would deviate from the computer rankings. The AELTC based seedings on previous grass court results and Wimbledon results. Due to the close scheduling of Paris and Wimbledon, terrific results in Paris bumped up the rankings of clay court players, who were not always prone to good results on grass. Wimbledon now follows a formula for determining seeding, which takes into account prior grass court matches, owing to the fact that so few tournaments are played on grass. This is commendable, and provides an opportunity for the most balanced draw possible. If Wimbledon can devise a formula for weighting grass court results, surely the French Federation and the USTA can find a way to do something similar? "

The full article gets into it far more. Its worth reading:

http://www.sportsmediainc.com/tennisweek/index.cfm?func=showarticle&newsid=16977

 

[WBF]

How does the ranking actually work?

If it doesn't, shouldn't it take into account recent results prioritized over past results, big events over small events, and averages vs. additive point systems?

I'm assuming it does all this, anything else would simply be illogical.

 

[Attila the tennis Bum]

How does the ranking actually work?

If it doesn't, shouldn't it take into account recent results prioritized over past results, big events over small events, and averages vs. additive point systems?

I'm assuming it does all this, anything else would simply be illogical.

Its an incentive based system designed to make money for promoters. Simply put the more you play then the higher your ranking. Thats why Venus Williams was the lowest ranked player to ever win Wimbledon. She was ranked so low because she did not play often....but we all know that her low ranking did not really reflect her true talent.

 

[pirateofthecarribean]

Its an incentive based system designed to make money for promoters. Simply put the more you play then the higher your ranking. Thats why Venus Williams was the lowest ranked player to ever win Wimbledon. She was ranked so low because she did not play often....but we all know that her low ranking did not really reflect her true talent.

Actually, Venus did play a lot after Australian Open this year, with fair achievements before Wimbledon. I always wondered why her ranking was so low going into Wimbledon? Anyhow..... didn't make a difference.

 

[Attila the tennis Bum]

Actually, Venus did play a lot after Australian Open this year, with fair achievements before Wimbledon. I always wondered why her ranking was so low going into Wimbledon? Anyhow..... didn't make a difference.

I think you mean Serena? Who by the way was ranked really low for the AO and beat the crap out of the #1 seed at the AO and again after. I think she was ranked 80 something in the world. Clearly something is wrong with the ranking system as it stands today.

 

[keithchircop]

Yeah, let's change to a "make Nadal first" ranking system.

 

[Attila the tennis Bum]

Yeah, let's change to a "make Nadal first" ranking system.

Well he should be ranked first for the French open don't you think?

 

[Tennis_Goodness]

The ranking system is very good. It's really accurate actually.

 

[Attila the tennis Bum]

The ranking system is very good. It's really accurate actually.

"Roland Garros has the highest number of seeded casualties every year. Many unseeded or lower seeded players are much better clay court players than their overall rankings indicate. I advocate for a better seeding procedure as to showcase and maximize the talent throughout the draw — to have an event where superior players will not meet in early rounds. As the tours evolve I hope there is real consideration for allowing an adjustment for seeding at the majors.

While I advocate employing such a seeding system now, I do wish the ITF and the French Tennis Federation would employ a formula for incorporating clay court results for seeding for next year's French Open. Andy Roddick currently is No. 3, 25 points ahead of Nikolay Davydenko. Fernando Gonzalez and Novak Djokovic are ranked fifth and sixth respectively, both have 2,810 ranking points. If any formula were used that incorporated clay results, Djokovic and Gonzalez would both be ahead of Roddick, no question. Roddick’s clay record this year is 1-1. Last year he was 5-3 (ATP matches only, and not counting his retirement vs. Nicolas Massu in ATP Team Cup.) Since the start of 2006, Roddick’s record in clay court tournaments, plus Davis Cup and ATP Team Cup results on clay, Roddick is a staggering 8-7 on clay. Sorry, but there is absolutely no reason Andy should be seeded third at the French Open. Personally I wouldn’t even seed him in the top eight. I’d like to hear one good argument, apart from his No. 3 ranking, why Andy should be seeded in the top four for Paris.

Roddick has been ranked in the top five every year since 2003. His seedings in Paris have been No. 6 in 2003 (lost in first round), No. 2 in 2004 (lost second round), No. 2 in 2005 (lost first round), No. 5 in 2006 (lost second round). Pete Sampras was seeded first or second in Paris every year from 1993-2000. During that eight year stretch he made the semis once, the quarters twice, and lost in the first or second round on four occasions. In both cases, these highly-ranked American stars couldn’t come close to living up to their seedings because they didn’t have the clay court experience or results to see them through the draw at such a lofty seed.

For those of you upset that I would demote Roddick and James Blake for seeding at Roland Garros, I would suspect that a system that took into account hard-court play would definitely favor Roddick and Blake (among other Americans), and their seeding for U.S. Open could see a bump from their official ranking.

My proposal isn't an anti-American thing, just a reality check for the majors.

Djokovic beat Gonzalez in the second round of Paris last year and went on to reach the quarters before losing to defending champion Rafael Nadal. He won Estoril and reached the quarterfinals in Rome and Hamburg this year.

Gonzalez reached the Rome final this year and Hamburg quarterfinal, losing to Nadal both times. He did well on clay last year, reaching the semifinal in Monte Carlo and quarterfinal in Rome.

Davydenko should be seeded in top four based on his record and clay results.

Another curious situation is with Blake and Tommy Robredo, who lost early in Hamburg, so all his points came off, dropping him behind Blake. However, Blake’s clay record this year is 5-3, with three of those wins coming in Houston. Last year Blake was 4-4 on clay. Robredo slipped a bit on clay this year compared to last year. He is 7-5 this year, reaching semis in Estoril and quarters in Rome. Last year Robredo was 22-6 on clay, winning two titles. Robredo reached the quarters at Roland Garros in 2003 and 2005. He has never fared worse than the round of 16, except 2002 when he lost to Agassi in the third round. Blake has never gotten past the third round at Roland Garros. Robredo must be seeded ahead of Blake. The seeding formula applies to the men much more than the women.

Martina Hingis’ withdrawal from Paris will enable ninth-ranked Serena Williams to be seeded in the top eight, which is an adjustment that should have been made, even if Hingis had not withdrawn." Tennis Week

 

[Attila the tennis Bum]

finally another example is 1989. Becker should have been ranked #1 in the world but somehow Lendl was ranked #1 simply because he played more often.

1989 was possibly the pinnacle of Becker's career. He defeated Edberg in straight sets in the Wimbledon final, and then beat Lendl in the final of the U.S. Open. The World No. 1 ranking, however, still eluded him. How the hell is that fair????

 

[dukemunson]

finally another example is 1989. Becker should have been ranked #1 in the world but somehow Lendl was ranked #1 simply because he played more often.

1989 was possibly the pinnacle of Becker's career. He defeated Edberg in straight sets in the Wimbledon final, and then beat Lendl in the final of the U.S. Open. The World No. 1 ranking, however, still eluded him. How the hell is that fair????

Because Lendl more tournaments (10-4 I believe)...how the hell would becker being #1 be fair????

 

[dukemunson]

I think you mean Serena? Who by the way was ranked really low for the AO and beat the crap out of the #1 seed at the AO and again after. I think she was ranked 80 something in the world. Clearly something is wrong with the ranking system as it stands today.

Clearly something is wrong with the schedule Serena plays...the ranking system works...over the course of a year the better players rise....

 

[Attila the tennis Bum]

Because Lendl more tournaments (10-4 I believe)...how the hell would becker being #1 be fair????

well he beat Lendl at the US Open and he also won Wimbledon. The only grand slam Lendl won that year was the AO back in January. So how does he end up being the world #1????

If winning both the US Open and Wimbledon does not qualify you to be the #1 ranked player in the world then something is very wrong with the system.

The majors are well, "majors." They are much more important in tennis than all the other tour events. Their status, prestige, and historical significance makes them stand out. The evolution of the game has centered around the four majors for nearly 100 years. Players prepare and peak for the majors (and not for Acapulco, Bastad, Charleston, Dubai, Estoril, Frankfurt, etc. etc. etc.). The majors should have the ability to deviate from the computer rankings, and not be beholden to the pro tour’s system for assigning points and ratings.

 

[Attila the tennis Bum]

"Arguments against strictly following the rankings are:


The majors are run by the ITF, not the ATP and WTA. The pro tours administer the rankings, not the ITF.

The surfaces and conditions are different at each of the majors. While the majors are contested on surfaces similar to those events played throughout the year, the current tennis calendar allows for a relatively short build up to each major (Australia has two weeks of competition prior, Paris has six weeks of clay, Wimbledon only two weeks of grass, and the U.S. Open has six weeks of hard court play). Results on one surface don’t necessarily indicate success on another.

The majors are well, "majors." They are much more important in tennis than all the other tour events. Their status, prestige, and historical significance makes them stand out. The evolution of the game has centered around the four majors for nearly 100 years. Players prepare and peak for the majors (and not for Acapulco, Bastad, Charleston, Dubai, Estoril, Frankfurt, etc. etc. etc.). The majors should have the ability to deviate from the computer rankings, and not be beholden to the pro tour’s system for assigning points and ratings.

The majors ought to do everything they can to showcase their event and the best players in the sport. A revised method of seeding is not the same as fixing the draw. Matches still must be played. And the competitive nature of the sport will mean upsets will still occur.
All ranking points shouldn’t be equal! But they are. The current ranking system allows players to earn points based on results in the preceding 52 weeks. A ranking is a reflection of a year’s worth of tournament results. Going into the French Open, the points garnered from a tournament win the previous year on grass or last summer’s hard court season count equally (assuming the same tournament status designated by the ATP/WTA Tours) as a tournament win on clay in the weeks preceding Paris. Momentum can be a serious factor in determining the outcome of a major. I believe that recent success on the surface of the upcoming Slam should count for more when considering seeding. Not results that are nearly a year old and contested on a different surface.

Past performance at a specific major can be a large predictor of future success at that event. Some players just perform better on the big stage, or at certain events.

Historically, Wimbledon was the only major that would deviate from the computer rankings. The AELTC based seedings on previous grass court results and Wimbledon results. Due to the close scheduling of Paris and Wimbledon, terrific results in Paris bumped up the rankings of clay court players, who were not always prone to good results on grass. Wimbledon now follows a formula for determining seeding, which takes into account prior grass court matches, owing to the fact that so few tournaments are played on grass. This is commendable, and provides an opportunity for the most balanced draw possible. If Wimbledon can devise a formula for weighting grass court results, surely the French Federation and the USTA can find a way to do something similar? "

The full article gets into it far more. Its worth reading:

http://www.sportsmediainc.com/tennisweek/index.cfm?func=showarticle&newsid=16977

I think this may have gotten lost because no one responded to it.

 

[dukemunson]

You are right, Becker won 2 slams to Lendl's 1 slam in 1989. Here is the breakdown:

Aussie:
Lendl- won
Becker- lost 4th round

French:
Lendl- lost 4th round
Becker- lost Semis

Wimby:
Lendl- lost semis
Becker- won

US Open:
Lendl- finals
Becker- won

What cant be overlooked though is:

Total tournaments won in 1989:
Lendl- 10
Becker 4

Becker had the edge if one just looked at slams, but it wasn't an overwhelming edge and as soon as you factor in consistency like that from Lendl its fairly obvious (and obviously fair) why and how Lendl was the deserved year end #1 in 1989.

 

[anchorsteamer]

Still cant believe Becker won that US Open...Rostagno had him beat in the second round...that was unbelievable.

As for the ranking system...it works, what are you talking about. I agree seeding should be tweaked a bit at the majors (like at wimby) but the ranking system is fine. Good results in majors is rewarded (huge difference in point distribution) but being consistent with your results all year balances out everything and gives a true indication of how good someone is. Your argument makes sense on seeding but makes absolutely no sense in regards to ranking...

 

[Attila the tennis Bum]

Still cant believe Becker won that US Open...Rostagno had him beat in the second round...that was unbelievable.

As for the ranking system...it works, what are you talking about. I agree seeding should be tweaked a bit at the majors (like at wimby) but the ranking system is fine. Good results in majors is rewarded (huge difference in point distribution) but being consistent with your results all year balances out everything and gives a true indication of how good someone is. Your argument makes sense on seeding but makes absolutely no sense in regards to ranking...

Well a lot of people disagree with that. As you can see the tennis week article proposes a surface based ranking system like at Wiombledon. Do you really think that its fair that Roddick be ranked as the #3 seed at the French?

Furthermore almost the entire world disagreed with the ranking system when becker won both Wimbledon and the US Open and still was the #2 player in the world. In fact the same thing holds true today....for example....

Lets say Nadal won both the FO & Wimbledon.....can you believe that he would still be ranked #2 in the world???? How is that right????

 

[jhhachamp]

Lets say Nadal won both the FO & Wimbledon.....can you believe that he would still be ranked #2 in the world???? How is that right????

Well, Federer would have won the US Open and the Australian Open, so they would each have two grand slams in the last 52 weeks covered by the rankings at present time. Federer would also have two grand slam finals in the past year, while Nadal would only have two grand slam quarterfinals, so I would still consider Federer the number one player.

 

[Attila the tennis Bum]

Well, Federer would have won the US Open and the Australian Open, so they would each have two grand slams in the last 52 weeks covered by the rankings at present time. Federer would also have two grand slam finals in the past year, while Nadal would only have two grand slam quarterfinals, so I would still consider Federer the number one player.

would you really? So If in 2007 Nadal had won both Wimbledon and The US OPEN beating Federer in each you would still think that Fed deserves the #1 spot???

 

[anchorsteamer]

Well a lot of people disagree with that. As you can see the tennis week article proposes a surface based ranking system like at Wiombledon. Do you really think that its fair that Roddick be ranked as the #3 seed at the French?

Furthermore almost the entire world disagreed with the ranking system when becker won both Wimbledon and the US Open and still was the #2 player in the world. In fact the same thing holds true today....for example....

Lets say Nadal won both the FO & Wimbledon.....can you believe that he would still be ranked #2 in the world???? How is that right????

I agreed with you on the seeding, it should be changed so as to be more indicative of ability and probably results on that surface.

Who is this "almost entire world" you refer to? Lendl won 6 more tournaments then Becker in 1989, and while Becker had the extra slam Lendl finaled that same slam which kept him within striking distance of Becker. When he won most of the other tournies he entered, compared to Beckers struggles (only taking 4 tournaments) he distanced himself and was the deserved #1.

You have argued the Nadal point so many times yet remain unable to understand it. If Nadal had won Wimbledon he would have 2 slams...BUT SO WOULD FEDERER!!! Federer would also have 2 final appearances to go along with his two slams (Nadal would have 2 quarterfinals to go along with his 2 titles). HOW WOULD THAT IN ANY CONTEXT OR WAY PUT NADAL AHEAD OF FEDERER? And no matter how many times you miss this point, tournies throughout the year are important...so even with Nadal as the wimby champ Federer's second half of last year would have him far ahead still (in addition to previously described better slam results). Whats your point????

 

[anchorsteamer]

would you really? So If in 2007 Nadal had won both Wimbledon and The US OPEN beating Federer in each you would still think that Fed deserves the #1 spot???

what are you saying here?

 

[krz]

Whats your point? Are you trying to argue that Nadal deserves to be #1 right now? Because even the biggest Nadal supporters here arn't going to agree with that.

all I see here is waaaa my favorite player isn't number 1 and he should be

 

[BigServer1]

Well a lot of people disagree with that. As you can see the tennis week article proposes a surface based ranking system like at Wiombledon. Do you really think that its fair that Roddick be ranked as the #3 seed at the French?

Furthermore almost the entire world disagreed with the ranking system when becker won both Wimbledon and the US Open and still was the #2 player in the world. In fact the same thing holds true today....for example....

Lets say Nadal won both the FO & Wimbledon.....can you believe that he would still be ranked #2 in the world???? How is that right????

Are you still on this kick? What ifs are total BS when it comes to arguments. Nadal didn't win Wimbledon. Maybe you can use that argument leading up to it next year, but for now, it's done. If Nadal were to beat Federer in the finals of the US Open, one would have to think Fed still had the better year if he and Nadal won a similar number of tournaments of similar caliber. W,F,W,F trumps QF,W,F,W any day. Two wins and two finals equals more ranking points as well, so again, your argument doesn't hold up.

As for Nadal being #1 at the FO, I'm all for that. He's shown he's the best on clay and until someone beats him in Paris it should stay that way. I think you have a better chance of winning that argument than the "what if Nadal won a tournament that he lost almost a month ago" argument.

 

[BigServer1]

would you really? So If in 2007 Nadal had won both Wimbledon and The US OPEN beating Federer in each you would still think that Fed deserves the #1 spot???

That is a completely different question than you asked before. There is not a sane person that would say Roger would be #1 after Nadal won 3 slams in a year. Again, you're using the IF Nadal had won Wimbledon argument. He didn't win, and playing this desperate what if game to try and push your opinion that Nadal should be #1 is sad. Go back to questioning Federer's sexuality and being a troll.

It's posters like you that make me come around here less and less...

 

[jhhachamp]

would you really? So If in 2007 Nadal had won both Wimbledon and The US OPEN beating Federer in each you would still think that Fed deserves the #1 spot???

You just completely changed the debate we were having. Before we were discussing the hypothetical of if Nadal had won both the FO and W over Federer and all of a sudden you changed it to W and the US. How can I possibly have a debate with a person who cannot hold a steady argument?

 

[pow]

I can't believe this thread is still going...

Look at the way the system works, you win it, you get points, you keep points until the event is played again in which case, you try to defend points. Simple as that.
Take out a little calculator and total up their points please. Nadal is #2 for a reason, not because Rod Laver or (throw in random person) said so.
I know you really like Nadal and would love it if he was #1 in the world at everything... won all the slams along with the French... but that's just not the case. Federer still edges Nadal with points from mid-year to year-end events.

If Federer and Nadal switched their tournament results with each other, Nadal would be #1, nobody could lie their way around that... but for the time being... Federer is Federer and Nadal is Nadal.
The man is not trying to hold Nadal down... ok?

 

[Attila the tennis Bum]

That is a completely different question than you asked before. There is not a sane person that would say Roger would be #1 after Nadal won 3 slams in a year. Again, you're using the IF Nadal had won Wimbledon argument. He didn't win, and playing this desperate what if game to try and push your opinion that Nadal should be #1 is sad. Go back to questioning Federer's sexuality and being a troll.

It's posters like you that make me come around here less and less...

I have not questioned Fed sexuality...but now we see your real agenda.

Secondly I did make a typo and will change it. In other words the Hypo is this:

If Nadal won both Wimbledon and the French open in 2007 he would still be the #2 player in the world today.

Don't you see something wrong with that??? Its exacly the same as :

When in 1989 Becker actually did win the US open and Wimbledon while Lendl only one the AO, Lendl still was #1 and Becker was #2.


Don't you see something very wrong with that????

 

[Attila the tennis Bum]

Whats your point? Are you trying to argue that Nadal deserves to be #1 right now? Because even the biggest Nadal supporters here arn't going to agree with that.

all I see here is waaaa my favorite player isn't number 1 and he should be

No I am not. Maybe thats why I am getting all this animosity. Federer deserves the #1 ranking on everything except clay.

I am proposing a surface based ranking system and a system that gives far far more weight to Wimbledon versus a bunch of little tournaments like dubai added all up.

 

[Attila the tennis Bum]

I agreed with you on the seeding, it should be changed so as to be more indicative of ability and probably results on that surface.

Who is this "almost entire world" you refer to? Lendl won 6 more tournaments then Becker in 1989, and while Becker had the extra slam Lendl finaled that same slam which kept him within striking distance of Becker. When he won most of the other tournies he entered, compared to Beckers struggles (only taking 4 tournaments) he distanced himself and was the deserved #1.

You have argued the Nadal point so many times yet remain unable to understand it. If Nadal had won Wimbledon he would have 2 slams...BUT SO WOULD FEDERER!!! Federer would also have 2 final appearances to go along with his two slams (Nadal would have 2 quarterfinals to go along with his 2 titles). HOW WOULD THAT IN ANY CONTEXT OR WAY PUT NADAL AHEAD OF FEDERER? And no matter how many times you miss this point, tournies throughout the year are important...so even with Nadal as the wimby champ Federer's second half of last year would have him far ahead still (in addition to previously described better slam results). Whats your point????

If Nadal had won Wimbledon this year and the FO this year then Nadal would have 2 slams while Fed would only have the AO in 2007. To count the US open from 2006 is just not logical!

I really do not think that tournys throught the year are all that important. I cant say it better than the article:
The majors are well, "majors." They are much more important in tennis than all the other tour events. Their status, prestige, and historical significance makes them stand out. The evolution of the game has centered around the four majors for nearly 100 years. Players prepare and peak for the majors (and not for Acapulco, Bastad, Charleston, Dubai, Estoril, Frankfurt, etc. etc. etc.). The majors should have the ability to deviate from the computer rankings, and not be beholden to the pro tour’s system for assigning points and ratings.

 

[caulcano]

I have not questioned Fed sexuality...but now we see your real agenda.

Secondly I did make a typo and will change it. In other words the Hypo is this:

If Nadal won both Wimbledon and the French open in 2007 he would still be the #2 player in the world today.

Don't you see something wrong with that??? Its exacly the same as :

When in 1989 Becker actually did win the US open and Wimbledon while Lendl only one the AO, Lendl still was #1 and Becker was #2.


Don't you see something very wrong with that????

Someone has already pointed out that IF Nadal had won Wimbledon then he would hold 2 GS titles - the exact same number as Federer. In addition Federer's other 2 non-winning GS appearances would be greater than Nadal's other 2 non-winning GS appearances.

However, Nadal would be even further ahead in the race to be year-end #1.

 

[Attila the tennis Bum]

That is a completely different question than you asked before. There is not a sane person that would say Roger would be #1 after Nadal won 3 slams in a year. Again, you're using the IF Nadal had won Wimbledon argument. He didn't win, and playing this desperate what if game to try and push your opinion that Nadal should be #1 is sad. Go back to questioning Federer's sexuality and being a troll.

It's posters like you that make me come around here less and less...

Someone has already pointed out that IF Nadal had won Wimbledon then he would hold 2 GS titles - the exact same number as Federer. In addition Federer's other 2 non-winning GS appearances would be greater than Nadal's other 2 non-winning GS appearances.

However, Nadal would be even further ahead in the race to be year-end #1.

And I am saying that it should not be that way. How can you support a system that counts the 2006 US open as a basis for ranking in 2007???

The rankings in 2007 should be only based on performance in 2007 rather than 2006. Therefore in my hypo fed would only have one gs...the AO, while Nadal would have two the FO &Wimby.

Secondly I think its insane that the AO is played in January. It should be played in th summer like all the other grand slams.

 

[onkystomper]

And I am saying that it should not be that way. How can you support a system that counts the 2006 US open as a basis for ranking in 2007???

The rankings in 2007 should be only based on performance in 2007 rather than 2006. Therefore in my hypo fed would only have one gs...the AO, while Nadal would have two the FO &Wimby.

Secondly I think its insane that the AO is played in January. It should be played in th summer like all the other grand slams.

So by that you are saying that at the begining of every year everyone should be rated the same. i.e. no points and then you go from there?

That is what the race rankings are about. world rankings count for 1 whole year. It is a good system.

Also what is the point in arguing if Nadal had won wimbledon. He did not.

 

[barry]

So by that you are saying that at the begining of every year everyone should be rated the same. i.e. no points and then you go from there?

That is what the race rankings are about. world rankings count for 1 whole year. It is a good system.

Also what is the point in arguing if Nadal had won wimbledon. He did not.

I don't think the current ranking system is any good at all, and does not represent the best tennis players. Why not use a 52 week system based on money earned. The top tournaments pay the most money, so if you win a major event; it is worth a lot more than a U.S. Open series event.

Plus no consideration is given for win quality. Take Roddick for example, he is ranked 5th in the world, but has only 1 top 10 win this year. He is keeping his ranking by playing events where no top 10 players participate.

Golf ranks by money, based on the previous 52 weeks. Why not tennis, and why not seed all 128 in majors by ranking, eliminate the set up draws some players seem to always get.