The rankings should change for each surface.

The rankings are crap. They don't reflect anything. For example do you really think that Federer should have been ranked #1 for the French open or Roddick #3 for the French open? Of course not!!! Nadal clearly deserved the #1 ranking for the French and Roddick should not have even been in the top ten!

The rankings should be syurace based. If there is a clay court tournament then the rankings should reflect who has the best record on clay. Furthermore if there is a grass tournament then the players with the best records on grass should be ranked according. The same should go for hard court....for example Nadal does NOT deserve the #2 ranking at a hard court tournament in my opinion. The rankings I think should look like this:

Clay:

1. Nadal
2. Federer
3. Djokovic

Grass

1. Federer
2. Nadal
3. Roddick

Hard Court

1. Federer
2. Djokovic
3. Roddick
 

Shabazza

Legend
Let me get this right - you're not talking about the ranking but about the seeding for tournaments? Like they do with Wimbledon?
 
I think that would be an interesting idea, and I would like to see where exactly Roddick would fall in the clay court rankings. :eek:
Top 100 perhaps?
 

ivo#1fan

Rookie
He has pretty good hard court record and came damn close to beating Fed at the open.

:confused: :confused: :confused: Getting swept in straight sets is damn close??? Roddick only had one break point the entire match and got rolled 6-2 in the 3rd set. If that counts as almost winning the match....Fed has beaten Roddick 10 times in a row. Out of the 41 set they've played Roddick has only won 6!!!!!
 
I agree they should have seperate rankings for each of the major surfaces, along with keeping an overall rankings and overall year end rankings. You should then be seeded per surface based on your surface rankings which are from the last 12 months (or maybe 24 months even).
 

johnny ballgame

Professional
Might have agreed with you in the past, but this argument has actually never been weaker. Nearly all of the top guys are good on every surface now. Federer is second best on clay and Nadal is second best on grass now. Why even bother, the rankings would hardly chage except for a few guys like Juan Monaco and Dr. Ivo.
 
Heard of the guy called Nadal? How about Nalbandian?

This is why I asked for an objective, results based reason to rank someone ahead of Roddick. Nadal actually isn't a bad argument. He's accumulated 1880 pts in 11 HC events this year with a 32-10 record. Roddick has 1775 pts in 10 HC events with a 34-9 overall record. Roddick with slightly better results at the slams this year, and over the course of his career obviously has much more impressive results.

Nalbandian has 1440 pts in 12 HC events this year and a 23-10 overall HC record. I don't see how you could objectively put him above Roddick, unless you promote a ranking system that's extremely tilted towards the previous month.
 
Might have agreed with you in the past, but this argument has actually never been weaker. Nearly all of the top guys are good on every surface now. Federer is second best on clay and Nadal is second best on grass now. Why even bother, the rankings would hardly chage except for a few guys like Juan Monaco and Dr. Ivo.

well for the #1 and #2 spot they certainly would not change very much but clearly for other spots they would have a huge impact. For example I don't think Roddick or Blake would be ranked in the top 20 on clay!
 
Might have agreed with you in the past, but this argument has actually never been weaker. Nearly all of the top guys are good on every surface now. Federer is second best on clay and Nadal is second best on grass now. Why even bother, the rankings would hardly chage except for a few guys like Juan Monaco and Dr. Ivo.

For the lower ranked guys it makes a big deal. If you are a top 16 seed on your best surface, or a non 32 seed on your worst, it is fair if that is what your results show your ability lie, then you dont get Nadal or Federer in the first round if it a surface you are one of the better ones and you dont deserve that.

Also not all the top guys are strong on all surfaces. Roddick sucks on clay, Davydenko sucks on grass, Ferrer also sucks on grass, Gonzalez is much better on hard courts then any other surface (although he has been to the quarters of all slams).
 

johnny ballgame

Professional
Also not all the top guys are strong on all surfaces. Roddick sucks on clay, Davydenko sucks on grass, Ferrer also sucks on grass, Gonzalez is much better on hard courts then any other surface (although he has been to the quarters of all slams).

I didn't say all the top players, I said nearly all the top players. Of course there are exceptions. Gonzo's record on each surface since 2003: Hard 71-43, Clay 82-38, Grass 15-9, Indoor Hard 23-13. Hardly a difference.

www.tennis.matchstat.com
 

Nadal_Freak

Banned
This is why I asked for an objective, results based reason to rank someone ahead of Roddick. Nadal actually isn't a bad argument. He's accumulated 1880 pts in 11 HC events this year with a 32-10 record. Roddick has 1775 pts in 10 HC events with a 34-9 overall record. Roddick with slightly better results at the slams this year, and over the course of his career obviously has much more impressive results.

Nalbandian has 1440 pts in 12 HC events this year and a 23-10 overall HC record. I don't see how you could objectively put him above Roddick, unless you promote a ranking system that's extremely tilted towards the previous month.
Wait until Australian Open, Indian Wells, and Miami and we'll see where Roddick holds up in front of Nadal and Nalbandian. I doubt it though. Maybe even Australian Open results is all Nalbandian and Nadal needs to get ahead of Roddick.
 

bluetrain4

G.O.A.T.
Tennis magazine used to do year-end surface rankings. They really didn't effect seedings or anything during the season, but they were interesting to look at nonetheless. This was in the 80s and possibly early 90s to the best of my knowledge.

I remember waiting for my Tennis Magazine as a kid to see the new rankings, which were published in the back (top 50), but by the time I received the magazine, the rankings were a couple of weeks old and would not include results that had happened just recently.
 
Wait until Australian Open, Indian Wells, and Miami and we'll see where Roddick holds up in front of Nadal and Nalbandian. I doubt it though. Maybe even Australian Open results is all Nalbandian and Nadal needs to get ahead of Roddick.

I don't disagree, but your rationale is neither objective nor results-based. Roddick's game doesn't impress me either, but you can't argue with his results.

If you were to concoct a ranking system for each surface that at all resembles the regular rankings, it's possible that Nadal might sneak in at #3, but it would be impossible to put Roddick lower than #4.
 

FedForGOAT

Professional
:confused: :confused: :confused: Getting swept in straight sets is damn close??? Roddick only had one break point the entire match and got rolled 6-2 in the 3rd set. If that counts as almost winning the match....Fed has beaten Roddick 10 times in a row. Out of the 41 set they've played Roddick has only won 6!!!!!

he was up a mini-break in the first set tiebreak. straight sets don't mean a thing. 7-6 7-6 7-6 is not closer than 6-0 6-0 6-7 6-0 for example.

Anyways, I agree they should have different seeding for the surfaces, but not different rankings.
 

Max G.

Legend
The problem with having different ranking systems is that you'd have even more "specialists" that only play on one surface. As it stands right now, there's a pretty heavy incentive for the top players to play on other surfaces; if we split it up into three rankings, I have a feeling we'd see many more players just not show up for the tournaments on their less-favored surfaces.
 

Nadal_Freak

Banned
I don't disagree, but your rationale is neither objective nor results-based. Roddick's game doesn't impress me either, but you can't argue with his results.

If you were to concoct a ranking system for each surface that at all resembles the regular rankings, it's possible that Nadal might sneak in at #3, but it would be impossible to put Roddick lower than #4.
Why not? Nalbandian is clearly playing better than Roddick right now. Not even close. Shouldn't take long for Nalbandian to be third or even second on hard courts.
 

Wuornos

Professional
Maybe they can think about that when they manage to get the system right for the overall rankings.
 
D

Deleted member 12045

Guest
Let's try to do this ranking here in this forum and then ATP website will follow us sure :)
Let's add points they got on any major tournament they play (I mean Master series and Grand Slam) and separate them according to the court type.
 

0d1n

Hall of Fame
Why not? Nalbandian is clearly playing better than Roddick right now. Not even close. Shouldn't take long for Nalbandian to be third or even second on hard courts.

Paris is played on indoor carpet. Madrid is played on so called "greenset" not sure exactly what the composition is for that surface but it's certainly faster than most hard courts (especially being indoors).
How exactly does winning indoors on carpet come up as an argument in a discussion about hard court results ?? :confused:
As usual you are letting personal bias interfere with your thinking.
I don't like Roddick either but as the other poster keeps saying ... you can't argue with results/facts. Just learn how to think logically and sustain your arguments with facts if you want to be taken seriously.
 
D

Deleted member 12045

Guest
Let's try to do this ranking here in this forum and then ATP website will follow us sure :)
Let's add points they got on any major tournament they play (I mean Master series and Grand Slam) and separate them according to the court type.
 
D

Deleted member 12045

Guest
Nadal
Clay 580
Hard/IH 306
IS 70
Grass 151
Total 1107

Roddick
Clay 16
H/IH 355
IS 0
Grass 95
Total 466


Federer
Clay 325
H/IH 716
IS 65
Grass 200
Total 1306

Djokovic
Clay 195
H/IH 608
SI 1
Grass 90
Total 894


Davydenko
Clay 174
H/IH 276
IS 65
Grass 30
Total 545

Ferrer
Clay 128
H/IH 300
IS 25
Grass 7
Total 450


Based on ATP race points this year, I have tried to rank them :

Grass : Federer, Nadal, Roddick, Djokovic, Davydenko, Ferrer

Hard/IH : Federer, Djokovic, Roddick, Nadal, Ferrer, Davydenko

IS : Nadal, Federer/Davydenko, Ferrer, Djokovic

Clay : Nadal, Federer, Djokovic, Davydenko, Ferrer, Roddick

Any comment are welcome!
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Zaragoza

Banned
Different rankings or seedings for each surface don´t make sense. That would rank really high those players who play many small tournaments on hardcourts or clay while other players take some rest because they are overall better along the season. Those players specialized on one surface usually make average results in the big events but winning a couple of small tournaments on that surface they would be ranked really high. It would favour those players who play almost every tournament on clay or hardcourts and it would go against complete players who are good on every surface so they need more rest and don´t play those small tournaments.
Results on different surfaces are related each other: if someone basically skips the clay season he will play almost every tournament on hardcourts and vice versa. So rankings for each surface would distort the reality of how good someone is, it would be more about the number of tournaments played. Overall rankings are more fair and reliable. Someone is no.1,2 or 20 because he deserves it along the year and that´s his status. Period.
 
Last edited:
Nadal
Clay 580
Hard/IH 306
IS 70
Grass 151
Total 1107

Roddick
Clay 16
H/IH 355
IS 0
Grass 95
Total 466


Federer
Clay 325
H/IH 716
IS 65
Grass 200
Total 1306

Djokovic
Clay 195
H/IH 608
SI 1
Grass 90
Total 894


Davydenko
Clay 174
H/IH 276
IS 65
Grass 30
Total 545

Ferrer
Clay 128
H/IH 300
IS 25
Grass 7
Total 450


Based on ATP race points this year, I have tried to rank them :

Grass : Federer, Nadal, Roddick, Djokovic, Davydenko, Ferrer

Hard/IH : Federer, Djokovic, Roddick, Nadal, Ferrer, Davydenko

IS : Nadal, Federer/Davydenko, Ferrer, Djokovic

Clay : Nadal, Federer, Djokovic, Davydenko, Ferrer, Roddick

Any comment are welcome!

Whats "IS" stand for? Indoor surface maybe ???
 
Last edited:

caulcano

Hall of Fame
The rankings are crap. They don't reflect anything. For example do you really think that Federer should have been ranked #1 for the French open or Roddick #3 for the French open? Of course not!!! Nadal clearly deserved the #1 ranking for the French and Roddick should not have even been in the top ten!

The rankings should be syurace based. If there is a clay court tournament then the rankings should reflect who has the best record on clay. Furthermore if there is a grass tournament then the players with the best records on grass should be ranked according. The same should go for hard court....for example Nadal does NOT deserve the #2 ranking at a hard court tournament in my opinion. The rankings I think should look like this:

Clay:

1. Nadal
2. Federer
3. Djokovic

Grass

1. Federer
2. Nadal
3. Roddick

Hard Court

1. Federer
2. Djokovic
3. Roddick


For a start, for each different surface there are different speeds. Take grass for example, Wimbledon is considered slow grass & Queens fast.

Also, you'd need an equal amount of tournaments on each surface to make a balanced system. Atm, I think there is only 3 grass tournaments to play in one year (Wimbledon, Queens & Halle), while there are significantly more clay & HC tournaments.
 
For a start, for each different surface there are different speeds. Take grass for example, Wimbledon is considered slow grass & Queens fast.

Also, you'd need an equal amount of tournaments on each surface to make a balanced system. Atm, I think there is only 3 grass tournaments to play in one year (Wimbledon, Queens & Halle), while there are significantly more clay & HC tournaments.

I don't think you would have to get all that specific. I think its ok to lump all grass into one category.
 

Nadal_Freak

Banned
Paris is played on indoor carpet. Madrid is played on so called "greenset" not sure exactly what the composition is for that surface but it's certainly faster than most hard courts (especially being indoors).
How exactly does winning indoors on carpet come up as an argument in a discussion about hard court results ?? :confused:
As usual you are letting personal bias interfere with your thinking.
I don't like Roddick either but as the other poster keeps saying ... you can't argue with results/facts. Just learn how to think logically and sustain your arguments with facts if you want to be taken seriously.
Paris is no longer carpet. It's actually a slow hardcourt and that is why Nadal did so well there.
 
D

Deleted member 12045

Guest
Rankings according to type of courts based on ATP race points

IS = Indoor Synthetic

Hello Serve and Volley!
It is completely the same as yours (you only remove the other players and one type of courts) and I have it in lines you in colons

Clay : 1.Nadal, 2.Federer, 3.Djokovic
Hard : 1.Federer, 2.Djokovic, 3.Roddick
Grass : 1.Federer, 2.Nadal, 3.Roddick
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I have said this over and over again, and I have never had anyone take the case further. But this is how I see the Tour should be:

I believe that the 4 Grand Slams should be show-cased and the season should rotate around them. In saying this, I believe that with the 4 Grand Slams, there should be a 16 round season, with 4 tournaments co-insiding with each of the grand slams.

For example. Each of the Grand Slams is played on 4 different surfaces. So atleast 4 tour tournaments should be played on the same surface as each of the Grand Slam surfaces, and only the points of those four tournaments will count. It is for this reason, that a player cant play 20 clay court titles for 2 months and then claim the #2 or even #1 ranking.

Players can play as many tournaments as they want in order to make a living, but only the 4 best results on each surface should be counted. In other words, the best player in the world would be easily defined as the one player that is able to adapt to playing on all surfaces and has proved himself on four. Not just one player playing clay court for half the year, and then being able to coast along for the rest of the season..

I think the US Open series has the right idea with its Masters events preluding to the US Open, and now that there will be an Australian Open series, they should do the same on grass, and in Europe on clay..

They should keep the end of year Masters, but it should be the catalist for crowning that years number one..
 
Last edited:
D

Deleted member 12045

Guest
I think the US Open series has the right idea with its Masters events preluding to the US Open, and now that there will be an Australian Open series, they should do the same on grass, and in Europe on clay..

I think it is ok for clay season : they have clay ATP Master Series in Hamburg and Roma and Monte Carlo or Barcelona taking place before Roland Garros in Paris...
But not Ok for grass season...
 
IS = Indoor Synthetic

Hello Serve and Volley!
It is completely the same as yours (you only remove the other players and one type of courts) and I have it in lines you in colons

Clay : 1.Nadal, 2.Federer, 3.Djokovic
Hard : 1.Federer, 2.Djokovic, 3.Roddick
Grass : 1.Federer, 2.Nadal, 3.Roddick

colons???....lol...somehow I don't think thats what you meant.;)
 

bluetrain4

G.O.A.T.
The problem with having different ranking systems is that you'd have even more "specialists" that only play on one surface. As it stands right now, there's a pretty heavy incentive for the top players to play on other surfaces; if we split it up into three rankings, I have a feeling we'd see many more players just not show up for the tournaments on their less-favored surfaces.

I kind of agree with this. This goes hand in hand with veiwing tennis as "tennis", not clay court, hardcourt, or grass court tennis. I know that surfaces play differently, sometimes extraordinarily so, but the fact is is that the rules are the same, it's still just tennis. Different surfaces do requires adjustments and sometimes different skills, but the players still has to be a solid tennis player no matter. Guga and Wilander made the Wimbledon QFs, Edberg nearly won the French, and Becker, Sampras, Rafter all made the French SFs. Favorable draws played a factor, but the fact is that they are all great tennis players regardless of surface.

The obsession with surface rankings is only bolstered by the recent 15 years of having 4 distinct surfaces. But, at times throughout tennis history, 3 of the majors were played and grass, or 2 on grass, 2 on clay.

I don't think it is in the best interest of the game to have surface rankings and surface champions, because it then becomes like boxing - split championships (though the idea of a title unification match in tennis is intriguing).

I don't think the answer is to split the rankings, but rather to demand more surface parity from the players. Go beyond counting only the top 16 (or whatever number it is) tournaments) and but a cap on how many of a player's top 16 can be on one surface. Require that the Top 16 include at least 5 hard, 5 clay, 2 indoor, and 2 grass (for example). The remaining 2 tournaments can be any surface. (Again, this is just an example, you could do this in any number of ways.) Granted, the grass court requirement would be difficult due to lack of grass tourneys, but at least include 1 grass result. If the player doesn't play a grass tourney, then he can't fill it in for rankings purposes with a tourney on another surface.
 

caulcano

Hall of Fame
There is no ATP master series in grass! ("preluding master series event to Wimbledon")
They can turn the Stell Artois event into one for instance

That would be a good idea. However, you would either increase the number of MS or one of the MS would lose it's status. Either way not everyone would be happy.
 

FiveO

Hall of Fame
Isn't this proposal the same thing that caused the "clay-courters" to threaten and, for some individuals, to actually boycott Wimbledon in the not too distant past? Ironic.
 
Isn't this proposal the same thing that caused the "clay-courters" to threaten and, for some individuals, to actually boycott Wimbledon in the not too distant past? Ironic.

Let them boycott.. If they can only win and feel comfortable on one surface, then that doesn't exactly make them great tennis players in my opinion..

I for one don't have a problem with clay, but as a spectator, having 8 million clay court tournaments and only a few grass court tournaments doesn't sit well with me.. That is why if the ATP was serious, then they would evenly distribute the tournaments on each surface, and have those surfaces playing equally differently.. 4 Masters on Grass, 4 Masters on Clay, 4 Masters on Fast Plexicushion Court (AO), 4 Masters on Slow Hard Court (US), and year end Masters on Carpet like in the old days at the Garden with no doubles lines..

There is no need to slow Wimbledon down, thats what we have clay courts for, and we need to have hard courts all different speeds aswell.. I think traditonally because Wimbledon and the AO were grass court tournaments, then those GS's should be the faster surfaced tournaments and have the US Open hard courts slowed down like we saw in Paris at the Masters.. and then clay as the slowest.

They played the US Open and still have in many area's green clay, so I cant see why the hard court surface at the US shouldn't be slowed down. I also believe that because of the heat in Melbourne during January, then the Australian Open should have a faster surface in order to keep the points and rallies short.. Making them longer is only going to affect the players and so the level of tennis will drop..

Also, the make up of the US and AO surfaces are different, and so cant be regarded as the same surface in my opinion.. Even when we had rebound ace. It was like playing on a rubber mat, and not like a hard court in my opinion.. So to call it a hard court was always strange for me to understand..
 
Last edited:

vicnan

Professional
Surface-based rankings are a great idea -- they will definitely be more useful and valuable than the current system. Unfortunately, the system is too entrenched in the current faulty system to change.
 

FiveO

Hall of Fame
chris in japan,

I agree with your overall premise, especially with the clay court "season" running all year. I think many fans miss the point as to how that can create an enormous skewing of not only seedings but rankings as well. Enough clay courters accumulating points on their favorite surface year round puts an inordinate number of clay courters in the top 100. With direct entries of those rankings they suddenly dominate majors and MS draws in terms of numbers. That means that a clay court can end up in the late rounds of a non-claycourt big event having only played other clay courters.

Like I said I like your basic idea, BUT.

My suggestion is that since the Aussie has been the second slowest playing conditions of the slams let it switch to har-tru. It won't be AS slow as it could be in the NE USA simply because the heat of the Aussie summer will dry the court quickly.

Leave the RG and its preceding events as well as Wimbledon the way it is, but return the speed of Wimbledon to nearer pre-2001 speeds. Sticking with the "adjustments" made since or creating a greater gap between the RG and W, IMO, cheapens the accomplishments of Budge, Laver and Borg in a historical sense.

Then add a MS grass event either pre- or post- Wimbledon.

Leave the US Open and the "series" a hardcourt event as that is what its homegrown fan base is familiar with and plays on.

Return the end of the year to carpet, slow the carpet to a medium speed but get the players off hardcourts. There were far fewer year end injuries when the players finished up on carpet than now.

Changing the end of the year to carpet and then transitioning to har-tru at the beginning of the next will alleviate the pounding the players take in their 11 month schedule. Players will have a much better chance to finish the year they started.

Also no matter how many events are scattered throughout the year, if those events want to be sanctioned and have rankings and race points awarded they have to be held on the "surface of the season", i.e. har-tru in the beginning of the year, hard courts after that, then red clay, grass, the faster hardcourts of the US summer, and then carpet. Don't award ranking/race points to players retreating to clay during the grass and fast hardcourt season or vice versa. If someone wants to support such events financially and players see that as a way to "make a living" fine, just don't reward such one-dimensional specialization with points that will impact the biggest ATP recognized events.

Otherwise leave the point structure and "mandatory" events as is, it will encourage everyone to play a major and an MS on har-tru, red-clay, hardcourts and grass, then a MS or two on a more forgiving surface at the end of the year when players will be scrambling to qualify for the YEC.

Forcing everyone to play almost equal amounts on the varied surfaces will "adjust" the rankings and tourney seedings by natural selection and not force some arbitrary surface rankings rewarding out of the blue hot streaks, or last year's results, to tinker with seeds. You're the best, well rounded 8, 16, or 32 players overall, or you're not. If you're not pull an upset and ride that seed's draw to the late rounds.

5
 
Last edited:
FiveO thanks for your input. I agree my idea needs tweaking, but I still believe that there should be 4 masters events played on each of the 4 grandslam surfaces, making the points season 16 tournaments, 4 GS's, and an end of year championship.

I am not sure about the AO playing on a slower court than what we have seen with the rebound ace of the last 20, and I only say that because of the heat in January.. Although here in Australia, we are unique in the fact that we have a court similar to clay called antbed.. Not terracotta dirt but simply just red Aussie dirt.. Plays kinda like clay and is fun to slide around on.. I grew up in QLD and I would say half the city courts are made of this material. But again, not sure I would want a rally fest in 40 celsius in the middle of January? Plus, I kinda tried to stay away from it and spent most of my tournament days on grass or hardcourt and only played on antbed when I absolutely had to..

But I think the Aussie Open is on the right track choosing the new court as I think definately needs faster rallies and the tournament should represent that.. I also think slowing down the US Open would be an easier option also as I really don't think that it plays all that fast anyway?.. Speeding up Wimbledon and leaving RG as it is.. With the AO and Wimbledon, you have always had a favourite that has won it.. The US and RG have always had the underdog or a new guy, one hit wonder win it, so that would suggest that the surface of both would be the most unpredictable of the 4..
 
Last edited:
I for one don't have a problem with clay, but as a spectator, having 8 million clay court tournaments and only a few grass court tournaments doesn't sit well with me.. That is why if the ATP was serious, then they would evenly distribute the tournaments on each surface, and have those surfaces playing equally differently.. 4 Masters on Grass, 4 Masters on Clay, 4 Masters on Fast Plexicushion Court (AO), 4 Masters on Slow Hard Court (US), and year end Masters on Carpet like in the old days at the Garden with no doubles lines..

I like your proposal and I think its fair.

However lets face facts. Grass is an antiquated surface that really only plays on.

The only reason it is played on at all is because of Wimbledon. Which is another issue , why is the most prestigious tournament in tennis played on an atiquated surface that almost no one plays on?

Imagine if the superbowl was played on concrete when all year it was played on astroturf in every stadium in the USA.

Its really insane. The only reason grass is played on at all is because a bunch of old farts are steeped in tradition and shackled by the notion that since tennis was played on grass during prehistoric times it should still be played on grass.

Using that same logic players today should be forced to play with tiny little wooden racquets and only use gut strings.
 
No, the reason we dont play on grass anymore is because people are just out to make a buck.. No one is interested in quality. No one is interested in looking after a grass court.. Look at how many Golf courses you have around the world. If the same attention was given to a grass court then people would use them, and pay well to use them.. The reason Grass court tennis has dissapeared is because the ATP WTA are lazy and have allowed it to dissapear.. Too busy trying to make money, when all they need to do is support the sport a little more, and the money will then be a given.. Run by a bunch of arseholes if you ask me..
 
Top