OddJack
G.O.A.T.
Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal , the world’s two best-known tennis players, are often depicted as chummy rivals, fiercely competitive on court but sharing a joke off it. After Mr Nadal complained earlier this year that his Swiss competitor did not support others’ demands for a less punishing season, Mr Federer was quick to play down any sign of friction. But it resurfaced this week when Mr Nadal resigned as vice-president of the Association of Tennis Professionals (ATP) Player Council, on which Mr Federer serves as president.
The busy Spaniard insists he cannot dedicate himself fully to the job of representing player concerns to ATP organisers, who run the tournament circuit. Yet he has clearly fallen out with Mr Federer on a core issue, having backed the introduction of a new rankings system that would score players over two years instead of one. Asked for his views on the proposal, Mr Federer had reportedly described it as “boring” and said it would make life harder for lower-ranked players. Right on both counts, Mr Federer might also have said that Mr Nadal’s scheme would not necessarily ease the pressure on higher-ranked players. Nevertheless, his resignation leaves that problem unresolved.
Perhaps the biggest flaw in Mr Nadal’s plan was that it reeked of short-term self-interest. Players receive a certain share of points, used to determine rankings, depending on how well they do in tournaments. Under the current system, they must defend those points the following year. Mr Nadal failed in this task in 2011, when he lost several titles to Serbia’s Novak Djokovic along with his number one position. Under a two-year system, he would not have had to defend the points he won in 2010 until this year, and would still have been the top seed entering competitions in early 2012.
Besides Mr Nadal’s status, other rankings would be less changeable under a two-year system. That justifies Mr Federer’s description of this approach as “boring”. Although self-interest also motivates the Swiss star, who wants to be able swiftly to recapture the number one spot he last held in 2009 (he is now ranked third, behind Mr Djokovic and Mr Nadal), introducing a less dynamic scoring method is unlikely to help popularise tennis. A two-year rankings calculation would also sit incongruously with the season, which stretches over 12 months, and even puzzle or annoy spectators. Many would surely think it unfair if Mr Djokovic had remained the world number two after winning both Wimbledon and the US Open, two of the four prestigious “grand slams”.
Above all, Mr Nadal’s scheme does not seem the best way to make the season less taxing, which is the Spaniard’s aim. It may have worked to his advantage in 2011, but it would have forced him to work doubly hard now, especially given his failure to accumulate as many points as Mr Djokovic last year. Similarly, while slowing the decline of injured or out-of-form players, it would prevent newcomers and long-term absentees from rising quickly without playing in every tournament possible.
Mr Nadal’s own injury problems explain his desire to exercise change. Yet other top players have also expressed the concern their careers may be cut short by wear and tear unless authorities reduce the workload, particularly over the northern hemisphere’s summer. Instead of fiddling with the rankings system, the ATP and International Tennis Federation, the sport’s governing body, could try distributing the grand slams—three of which take place between late May and early September—more evenly throughout the season. Of course, tournament organisers and sponsors would probably resist such a move. Moreover, the lack of indoor facilities could prevent play at other times of the year.
Mr Nadal’s critics say top players bear full responsibility for their problems. These days, most play an attritional, baseline game that contributes to injuries and burnout. No one expects an overnight resurrection of serve-and-volley tennis, but umpires could encourage players to shorten rallies by rigorously enforcing rules on time allowed between points. Many players are guilty of breaching official limits to give themselves a breather. With his graceful, attacking style, Mr Federer is not among them and has been able to avoid serious injury throughout a successful decade-long career. His reluctance to speak out on these issues has obviously upset Mr Nadal, but it is hardly a surprise.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/gametheory/2012/03/player-rankings-tennis
The two year ranking system proposal could only come from Nadal. He would offer a two year tax system if he could.
The self-interest in his idea is so obvious it sounds childish.
If two year ranking went on effect in 2010, he would be still number one after 7 consecutive losses to Novak Djokovic.
The busy Spaniard insists he cannot dedicate himself fully to the job of representing player concerns to ATP organisers, who run the tournament circuit. Yet he has clearly fallen out with Mr Federer on a core issue, having backed the introduction of a new rankings system that would score players over two years instead of one. Asked for his views on the proposal, Mr Federer had reportedly described it as “boring” and said it would make life harder for lower-ranked players. Right on both counts, Mr Federer might also have said that Mr Nadal’s scheme would not necessarily ease the pressure on higher-ranked players. Nevertheless, his resignation leaves that problem unresolved.
Perhaps the biggest flaw in Mr Nadal’s plan was that it reeked of short-term self-interest. Players receive a certain share of points, used to determine rankings, depending on how well they do in tournaments. Under the current system, they must defend those points the following year. Mr Nadal failed in this task in 2011, when he lost several titles to Serbia’s Novak Djokovic along with his number one position. Under a two-year system, he would not have had to defend the points he won in 2010 until this year, and would still have been the top seed entering competitions in early 2012.
Besides Mr Nadal’s status, other rankings would be less changeable under a two-year system. That justifies Mr Federer’s description of this approach as “boring”. Although self-interest also motivates the Swiss star, who wants to be able swiftly to recapture the number one spot he last held in 2009 (he is now ranked third, behind Mr Djokovic and Mr Nadal), introducing a less dynamic scoring method is unlikely to help popularise tennis. A two-year rankings calculation would also sit incongruously with the season, which stretches over 12 months, and even puzzle or annoy spectators. Many would surely think it unfair if Mr Djokovic had remained the world number two after winning both Wimbledon and the US Open, two of the four prestigious “grand slams”.
Above all, Mr Nadal’s scheme does not seem the best way to make the season less taxing, which is the Spaniard’s aim. It may have worked to his advantage in 2011, but it would have forced him to work doubly hard now, especially given his failure to accumulate as many points as Mr Djokovic last year. Similarly, while slowing the decline of injured or out-of-form players, it would prevent newcomers and long-term absentees from rising quickly without playing in every tournament possible.
Mr Nadal’s own injury problems explain his desire to exercise change. Yet other top players have also expressed the concern their careers may be cut short by wear and tear unless authorities reduce the workload, particularly over the northern hemisphere’s summer. Instead of fiddling with the rankings system, the ATP and International Tennis Federation, the sport’s governing body, could try distributing the grand slams—three of which take place between late May and early September—more evenly throughout the season. Of course, tournament organisers and sponsors would probably resist such a move. Moreover, the lack of indoor facilities could prevent play at other times of the year.
Mr Nadal’s critics say top players bear full responsibility for their problems. These days, most play an attritional, baseline game that contributes to injuries and burnout. No one expects an overnight resurrection of serve-and-volley tennis, but umpires could encourage players to shorten rallies by rigorously enforcing rules on time allowed between points. Many players are guilty of breaching official limits to give themselves a breather. With his graceful, attacking style, Mr Federer is not among them and has been able to avoid serious injury throughout a successful decade-long career. His reluctance to speak out on these issues has obviously upset Mr Nadal, but it is hardly a surprise.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/gametheory/2012/03/player-rankings-tennis
The two year ranking system proposal could only come from Nadal. He would offer a two year tax system if he could.
The self-interest in his idea is so obvious it sounds childish.
If two year ranking went on effect in 2010, he would be still number one after 7 consecutive losses to Novak Djokovic.
what a humble bull cra*
