The ranking system is complete B.S.

onkystomper said:
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.
Click to expand...

yes I am saying that every new year should begin at zero. Hence the term "NEW YEAR". To base rankings on 2006 results is illogical. In fact what other sport does that???

Secondly the point of my hypo was to illustrate how unfair the system is. If Nadal had in fact won Wimbledon and the FO I think at that point he would be the true #1 in everyones minds....but according to the ATP he would only be #2. How is that fair???its the same as what happened in 1989...becker won the USO and Wimbledon and Lendl only won the AO......yet Becker was #2.:confused: . The system makes a bunch of tiny tournaments more important than the grand slams.

In fact I believe another poster on this board started a string that "Fed is giving up the #1 spot".. His point was that Nadal is playing all these clay court tournaments and winning while Fed is doing nothing. Imagine if Nadal started winning a bunch of little tornys while Fed took a break...then Nadal would be #1. Would that be fair?????? Of course not!!! Fed has won Wimby and the AO while Nadal has only won the FO.

The system is based on making the ATP rich. It is incentive based so promoters can make money. If you knew how the ATP was formed you would know that to be true. But thats for another discussion.

Finally the grand slams are not run by the ATP but rather by the ITF. So why on earth should the ATP decide the rankings??? Shouldn't the ITF actually make the rankings as they govern the grand slams?
 
Last edited:
The thing is that Federer has been in 3 slam finals (out of three) this year and won two, this is obviously the best record in slams of all players on tour this year, but he is still number 2 in the race and why? Because he didn't win Indian wells and Miami like he normally does and he's also played only 9 tournaments to Nadal's 13. With wins at Indian Wells and Miami Federer would be No.1, and if he defends all of his titles for the rest of year (not including the MC) irrelevant of how Nadal does he will finish the year as No.1.

Currently though, at this point Nadal is having a better year than Federer, he's won more titles and more MS titles, despite not doing as well in GS events. If it was based PURELY on GS and not an overall year performance then Federer would be No.1 right now, and he's still extremely likely to end the year as No.1.
 
ninman said:
Currently though, at this point Nadal is having a better year than Federer, he's won more titles and more MS titles, despite not doing as well in GS events. .
Click to expand...

ummmmmm....Nadal has won a gs this year and made it to the finals of another. How can you say he has not done well in gs this year?
 
Attila the tennis Bum said:
ummmmmm....Nadal has won a gs this year and made it to the finals of another. How can you say he has not done well in gs this year?
Click to expand...

Nadal is not doing as well as Federer in GS this year....

Federer has appeared in 3 GS finals winning 2. Nadal has appeared in 2 GS finals, winning one and a QF appearance.
 
ninman said:
My point was that GS results alone aren't enough, it's overall year performance, and currently Nadal's is better.
Click to expand...


I disagree. The Grand slams should be more important than anything else. Thats what the article said:


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 said:
I disagree. The Grand slams should be more important than anything else. Thats what the article said:


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.
Click to expand...

That's why winning one earns you 200 points, twice as much as a MS. You think they should be worth more?
 
In WTA (I don't follow ATP), GS should be worth more than twice as a Tier I. Tier I gets about 500 points and GS gets only 1000. IMO, GS should be worth 2000 points. And (arguably), Wimbledon should be more than any other GS by 1000 points at 3000 points.
 
Attila the tennis Bum said:
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.

Why are you struggling so much with this...its really simple. Becker beat Lendl in the finals of the US Open, giving him an extra slam (2 to 1 with lendl finaling the one). That means Becker had one more victory in slams then Lendl on the year...one. Should the 9 tournaments he won be completely over-looked then? Should those dozens of wins mean nothing? Should one match decide who was best that year or a composite of the full year?

As for the 52 week system...it works. It's the only system that's fair and could work for seeding. There shouldn't be a quality win system either. And stop referencing the stupid article as it means nothing...the seeding should be tweaked at tournies, but what matters is who has been the best over the last year. That's why Sampras's 6 straight years at #1 was so impressive...your system simply wouldnt work.

I'd imagine you'll come back with, "But Becker won 2 slams" or something like that but take a step back and analyze your argument...you want tennis to be about 4 tournaments and thats it. How could that possibly work. And tennis isn't the only sport with the 52 week system...ever watch any golf...they also use the 52 week system and obviousaly play more then just the majors. Your trying to use a system for a seasonal sport like football or basketball for a year round individual sport...doesn't work or make sense..
Click to expand...
 
Attila the tennis Bum said:
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????
Click to expand...

Here is an oppourtunity to learn something. IF and WHEN are two different things. In 1989, Becker deserved the #1 ranking IF Slams were the only basis for ranking. The key point here is that Becker actually won the two slams in question. You have created an argument that is completely based off of a hypothetical that has come and gone and never happened. IF Nadal had won Wimbledon and was ranked #2, you would have a point. The fact is he didn't, so your argument holds no water whatsoever.

You seem to completely misunderstand the ranking system as well. Nadal currently leads Federer in the year end points race, while Federer has the overall lead in the ATP points that determine seedings at tournaments. So you have both the 12 month revolving points (points one must defend) and the start each year at zero points race which determines the year end champion.

Let me pose you a hypothetical question since you love them so much. What if Federer loses early in Canada and Cincy, while Nadal wins both. Then Federer wins the US Open beating Nadal in the Finals. Depending on the TMC, Nadal could finish the year #1 in the points race, even though Federer won 3 slams that year. Would you be screaming on your sad little mountain if that happened? Would that be tragic injustice in your eyes?

I'll rephrase what I said earlier: Why don't you go back to making threads about Fed's "feminine" (your word) image ruining tennis, his man purse, his cologne...oh wait...that sounds like questioning his sexuality.
 
BigServer1;Would you be screaming on your sad little mountain if that happened? [/QUOTE said:
haha sorry that line mad me laugh hard.

anyway I find it funny that Attila is the only one arguing for his point while everybody else seems to disagree and yet he still thinks that we are being illogical.
Click to expand...
 
pirateofthecarribean said:
Remember how Kim Clijsters skipped Roland Garros to prepare for Wimbledon, then changed her mind and got married instead. Shows that Wimbledon is way higher than Roland Garros.
Click to expand...

Using that logic (which is completely illogical) Wimbledon is less important then the French because several Spaniards have skipped it in the past...
 
anchorsteamer said:
Using that logic (which is completely illogical) Wimbledon is less important then the French because several Spaniards have skipped it in the past...
Click to expand...

Whatever, they are only good on clay anyway. Besides, there is NO way the other 3 "majors" are at the same level as Wimbledon. Wimbledon is the most well-known in the world. Even every layman from Africa knows it. Bet there are few people in the world actually know what Roland Garros is.
 
If anything, Wimbledon should be worth less as it's played on a surface that hardly anyone ever plays on (or if your pro, a surface you only play on a few weeks each year). The system works...no matter if African laymen (????) only know Wimbledon...
 
pirateofthecarribean said:
Yes, to crazy tennis people who watch tennis everyday, they are. But, to the layman, only Wimbledon is known and hence matters.
Click to expand...

So you think a layman who lives in Australia thinks Wimby is the most important grandslam, or a layman who lives in Paris ...... or a layman who lives in NY.....

You are spouting your unsubstantiated opinion as truth.
 
i dont like the fact that you have to defend your points the very next year. look at baghdatis, he reached the final of the australian, and because he didnt repaet that final appearance again, he dropped about 650 ranking points ( plus another 25!) thats terrible, but however,i dont think they should change it as it works for the pros.
 
stav_babolat said:
i dont like the fact that you have to defend your points the very next year. look at baghdatis, he reached the final of the australian, and because he didnt repaet that final appearance again, he dropped about 650 ranking points ( plus another 25!) thats terrible, but however,i dont think they should change it as it works for the pros.
Click to expand...

I don't think there's anything terrible about it.

If you play better at a tournament than you did before, your ranking goes up.
If you play the same as a tournament as you did before, your ranking stays the same.
If you play worse at a tournament than you did before, your ranking drops.

It's pretty simple. Playing better than before makes your ranking go up, playing the same as before lets your ranking stay the same, and playing worse than before makes your ranking go down.
 
If there was a tennis player that was so good that he could win all the 4 slams in a year without playing any warm-up events; and in fact if this player only played those 4 events in the year - the 4 grand slams - and he won them all (lets imagine he didn't mind paying the fines for missing the MS events); he would have a 28-0 match record for the year and probably have beaten the world numbers 1 and 2 several times, but he would only have 4000 points and be ranked world number 3. That would be an example where the rankings would seem a bit inaccurate.
Unlikely to ever happen of course.
 
I'd still disagree...year end ranking is indicative of who was the best that year...all year...week in and week out. If someone only played 4 tournaments, even if they won all 4 they are taking zeros every other week, and as such wouldn't deserve to be ranked higher then someone that perhaps finaled, semi'd and quartered the slams and added 6-8 titles in other tournies. Tennis is a year round sport...the rankings indicate that well.
 
pow said:
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?
Click to expand...

PLEASE READ ATTILA. OMG

Someone close this thread already? It's so annoying trying to convey a point to someone not speaking with any logic. Federer has US Open points along with other events that Nadal does not have... Nadal barely won anything for the rest of the year last year after reaching the Wimbledon final. Nadal kept his French Open points prior to playing the event and defending it this year, why shouldn't Federer keep his US Open points before it is played again?
 
Rhino said:
If there was a tennis player that was so good that he could win all the 4 slams in a year without playing any warm-up events; and in fact if this player only played those 4 events in the year - the 4 grand slams - and he won them all (lets imagine he didn't mind paying the fines for missing the MS events); he would have a 28-0 match record for the year and probably have beaten the world numbers 1 and 2 several times, but he would only have 4000 points and be ranked world number 3. That would be an example where the rankings would seem a bit inaccurate.
Unlikely to ever happen of course.
Click to expand...
That scenario doesn't exist because nobody would want to play all warm-up events and miss all MS events. For what? Fear of greatness?
 
pow said:
That scenario doesn't exist because nobody would want to play all warm-up events and miss all MS events. For what? Fear of greatness?
Click to expand...

I said without playing any warmup events or MS, just the 4 slams. A kind of 'who needs the atp?' player.
 
I agree with Rhino

I don't think there is anything intrinsically wrong with the way the rankings are calculated with weightings for different events of a rolling horizon time period. In many ways this is the ideal.

However, I do think there is some revision necessary to the parameteres. Greater weighting should be given to the Grand Slam events and the time period should be xtended with perhaps greater weighting given to results in the more recent year.

This would have the effect of creating a system with less volatility. E.g. Players ratings would not decay as quickly due to inactivity. See Atila's point about Venus Williams.

Also there would be less pressure on players to compete in so many tournaments per year which isn't a good thing in my opinion. :)
 
I think Macenroe said that the rankings system needs looking at. For one it's your best five tournies outside of GS and MS that count, so someone like Daveydenko plays like 30 tournaments knowing that he'll win at least a couple, and then all those others where we lost in the first round won't count. Whereas someone like Federer basically plays only MS and GS and 4 or 5 and this year 2 or 3 small tournies only.

I think a player who plays fewer tournaments with better quality should be rewarded more than someone who just grinds it out week after week.
 
Wuornos said:
See Atila's point about Venus Williams.
QUOTE]


Atila is not a good person to site as proving a point...really not a good bet...

The point about the Yankees makes no sense as that is a seasonal team sport, and as such has no baring on an individual year round sport. Using your logic Tiger Woods would be the #4 golfer in the world...which of course is ridiculous.

Ninman- Why penalize someone who is out there week in and week out grinding tournament after tournament. He's setting himself up to break down mentally and physically, why go a step further and penalize him with points. The system works...Federer is the deserved #1...Nadal is the deserved #2...Djokovic is the deserved #3 and so on...this isn't NBA officiating...why are we trying to fix a system that works perfectly...
Click to expand...
 
tennisjunkiela said:
interesting point
Click to expand...

Actually, not that interesting because baseball and tennis are completely different sports, you can't expect to keep track of tennis the way you do baseball.

Same reason why I don't understand why people compare Tiger Woods with Federer... it's two different sports! Let's compare Jordan's record with Federer next huh?
 
pow said:
Actually, not that interesting because baseball and tennis are completely different sports, you can't expect to keep track of tennis the way you do baseball.

Same reason why I don't understand why people compare Tiger Woods with Federer... it's two different sports! Let's compare Jordan's record with Federer next huh?
Click to expand...

How about every single other sport...why is tennis the exception. baseball, hockey , football, basketball are all different sports but none of them have an insane system like we do in tennis.

In fact if you ask me ...clay courts, grass courts, and hard courts are different sports.
 
No one is asking you anything anymore as you cant grasp the difference between individual sport (tennis and golf) and team sport (baseball, hockey). It is obviousaly beyond you...
 
Attila the tennis Bum said:
Venus williams won wimbledon and yet she is not even ranked in the top 10. How you find that to be logical is beyond me.
Click to expand...

Few other players have just collected more points. The ranking cannot be based on few tournaments or voting...the system now is excellent. Or at least better than what are the choices. In tennis they have to put over 1500 players in order. They all cannot play against each other, it is no point to compare the system with baseball.
 
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