Ranking Points Are Ridiculous!

As far as Federer goes ranking points are ridiculous. I refuse to trust a system that makes out he's as low down as four in the world. If as he now can he plays a reduced schedule they will only get more ridiculous.

As long as Federer is put in the opposite side of the draw to Nadal (by playing over 600 matches, winning 16 slams and reaching the grand old age of 30 I think he's earnt that privilege) I will pay no more attention to them.

Good decision, Hawkeye.

I was kind of relieved when ferrer lost as he for now the gap has widened from 4th to 5th but feds has a lot of points to defend. It would be a tragedy if feds finished the year 5th behind no weapon ferrer! :'(

I think Fed's career is now about performing at the slams, rather than chasing ranking points. I mean Sampras was seeded 17th when he won his last slam.

erictheblueuk wrote:I think Fed's career is now about performing at the slams, rather than chasing ranking points. I mean Sampras was seeded 17th when he won his last slam.

Agree with that Eric. On this years form I don't think it can be claimed that he is still either 1 or 2 in the world. Djokovic a clear no1 and Nadal who has beaten him 3 times (yes 2 on clay but also 1 on hard) is no2. As there have been no head to heads between Federer and Murray it is hard to say who is next but under the points system ratified by the players Murray is there at present. Hopefully they will meet in Paris (same side of the draw) and possibly the WTF as it would be good to see how they match up at present.

If we are being consistent here on going by rankings then Andy Murray merits the number three slot on this year's form. Compared to Roger Federer he has a better slam record and won more titles this year.

Compared to Roger Federer he has a better slam record and won more titles this year.

Has he? Fed only lost to the slam winner in 3 of these slams. SO it's all down to the luck of the draw. And Federer was certainly closer to beat the slam winner on those 3 occasions than Murray ever was to beat his semi or final opponent.

So to me Federer is (or certainly was in 2011) the number 3 player...if not number 2.

CaledonianCraig

Your protests are falling on deaf ears. As I explained when talking about the mighty Federer ranking points are ridiculous...

Well done Federer for another win in Basle

hello

Has he? Fed only lost to the slam winner in 3 of these slams. SO it's all down to the luck of the draw. And Federer was certainly closer to beat the slam winner on those 3 occasion than Murray ever was to beat his semi or final opponent.

It's a problem within the ATP. Players will save themselves and give up quicker, still getting the same points as a player who can push it to 5 sets and not lose their concentration for a whole set and a half.

Don't worry hawkeye, ATP always make sure Fedal are kept out of reach until a potential final, according to socal

Josiah Maiestas. Hopefully the ATP will soon make this new rule official.

Thankyou Tenez. It was very kind of you to point out my mistake.

Eric, I dont think that Fed has planned to not to focus on ranking points. In a recent interview he said that no. 1 will not be impossible and the way the other players keep getting injured, it will not be a surprise if fed manages to get back his no. 1.

I agree that Federer hasn't giving up on number 1. I am not saying that he will get it back but it 's not impossible.

Andy Murray 4 slam semis 1 slam final

Roger Federer 3 slam semis 1 slam final

That is their slam records in 2011.

Caledonian Craig

Did you watch any of those matches?

I am merely stating statistical facts and can someone post up the amount if titles the respective players have won this year?

CaledonianCraig wrote:Andy Murray 4 slam semis 1 slam final

Roger Federer 3 slam semis 1 slam final

That is their slam records in 2011.

But that as I said is down to luck of the draw and has nothing to do with how you erform at slams. Andy Murray has alost all his matches against the players higher ranked than him in those slams. Federer did better than Murray in that regard.

Clutching at straws come to mind.

CaledonianCraig wrote:I am merely stating statistical facts and can someone post up the amount if titles the respective players have won this year?

But it is not a valid statistics as it doesn't take into consideration the luck of the draw. If you want to justify Murray as doing better at slams you want to back it up by how he did against the players that are higher ranked.

CaladonianCraig

This thread is not the place for statistical facts unless they are number of grand slams won or number of years at number 1. Or maybe even number of match points squandered...

If anyone has a nice photo of Federer with the Basle trophy or maybe a video of him hitting an impressive backhand this is the place.

Ah right so statistical facts about ranking points won this season are not for this thread despite it being about the whole ranking system? How odd.

Just a point on this season's form the draw us irrelevant as Federer has struggled bybhis high standards hence why his ranking has slipped. If you want to roll out that old chestnut of luck of the draw then to Fed of old the draw was immaterial as he beat whoever was in front of him but now that is not the case a la Tsonga at Wimbledon in the quarters. It is notvall about the slams either hence why I asked how many titles Murray and Federer have won this season.

Excuse the typos as I am posting from my mobile.

CaledonianCraig wrote:Just a point on this season's form the draw us irrelevant as Federer has struggled bybhis high standards hence why his ranking has slipped. If you want to roll out that old chestnut of luck of the draw then to Fed of old the draw was immaterial as he beat whoever was in front of him but now that is not the case a la Tsonga at Wimbledon in the quarters. It is notvall about the slams either hence why I asked how many titles Murray and Federer have won this season.

It's not the typos, the problem, It's the content! Federer only lost to Nadal and Djokovic is 3 of those slams and he was mighty close to beat those top 2 two much more than Murrray was, so I don't think "he struggled by his standard". He just lost close matches against 2 players who have really improved since 2007.

If it wasn't for DJoko and Nadal, He coudl have won 3 slams this year again.

We could go on about the what ifs forever in tennis and the ranking system doesn't work on what ifs it works on results. So how many titles has Fed and Murray win this year? Fed is now suffering from his previous year's higher performances in slams which he couldn't match this year whereas Murray has improved on his slam performances last year hence him overtaking Fed in the rankings - no real mystery.

"If it wasn't for DJoko and Nadal, He could have won 3 slams this year again"

Murray could have won all four if it hadn't been for them. Don't think he would but using your logic it's possible.

Calder106 wrote: "If it wasn't for DJoko and Nadal, He could have won 3 slams this year again"

Murray could have won all four if it hadn't been for them. Don't think he would but using your logic it's possible.

That's exactly why I want to use that logic cause we saw that Federer was close to the top 2, even beating the top 1 and having 2 MP in the other whereas Murray was never really close to beat 1 and 2. Without Djoko and Nadal, Murray woudl still have had to beat Federer whereas in the form we saw in the FO, USO and even AO, it woudl have been tough for Murray to beat Federer.

CaledonianCraig wrote:Ah right so statistical facts about ranking points won this season are not for this thread despite it being about the whole ranking system? How odd.

Statistical "facts" and concepts such as ranking points are not always the best way to describe whats going on. The ridiculous ranking points may indicate that Federer is the fourth best player in the world. However watching him play and being aware of what he has achieved it is clear (to me anyway) that this is not the case.

If Federer had to play a match against anyone other than Nadal who would be the favourite to win?

Why not use the logic that Murray has just been far more consistent than Federer this tearing slams and on the ATP tour where he has also won more titles than Fed. Odd as well that people moan about the draw as Fed is seen as the GOAT by many and in the past beat whoever was in front of him which just isn't the case anymore hence his slipping in the rankings. It doesn't take a mathematical genius to work it out.

hawkeye wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:Ah right so statistical facts about ranking points won this season are not for this thread despite it being about the whole ranking system? How odd.

Statistical "facts" and concepts such as ranking points are not always the best way to describe whats going on. The ridiculous ranking points may indicate that Federer is the fourth best player in the world. However watching him play and being aware of what he has achieved it is clear (to me anyway) that this is not the case.

If Federer had to play a match against anyone other than Nadal who would be the favourite to win?

Djokovic

Actually I'd make Djokovic favourite in any match between him and Federer and Murray's head-to-head with Fed in all meetings is not to be sniffed at. Rankings goes on results and always has done and when Fed stood top of the rankings I never heard his fans moan about the rankings or the draws either. Now who is clutching at straws?

Tenez wrote:

Calder106 wrote: "If it wasn't for DJoko and Nadal, He could have won 3 slams this year again"

Murray could have won all four if it hadn't been for them. Don't think he would but using your logic it's possible.

That's exactly why I want to use that logic cause we saw that Federer was close to the top 2, even beating the top 1 and having 2 MP in the other whereas Murray was never really close to beat 1 and 2. Without Djoko and Nadal, Murray woudl still have had to beat Federer whereas in the form we saw in the FO, USO and even AO, it woudl have been tough for Murray to beat Federer.

Yes it would have been tough but doesn't mean he couldn't have done it. Completely agree that Murray was well beaten by Djokovic in AO final (and against Nadal in the semis they played) but Federer also lost to him in three sets in the semis of that tournament. Since then Murray has played Djokovic twice losing the first in a thrird set tie break and with Novak pulling out of the second (he was injured I'm not questioning that). Federer's record against Nadal this year played three lost them all. So if the draws had worked out differently what proof it there that he would have beaten Nadal.

CaledonianCraig wrote:Andy Murray 4 slam semis 1 slam final

Roger Federer 3 slam semis 1 slam final

That is their slam records in 2011.

There are only four slams per year, Craig, including 2011, unless Miami or WTF (TBD) is being included.

Murray F - AO (do not double count the AO semi. ), SFs - RG, W, US (3 SFs, 1 F)

Federer SF - AO, QF - W, F - RG, SF - USO (2 SFs, 1F).

Murray deserves the #3 spot. He has played well at non-Slams.

Sorry forbthe confusion laverfan. I meant that Murray has reached all four slam semis this year converting one of those semis into a slam final whilst Federer has reached three slam semis converting one of those into a final.

CaledonianCraig wrote:Sorry forbthe confusion laverfan. I meant that Murray has reached all four slam semis this year converting one of those semis into a slam final whilst Federer has reached three slam semis converting one of those into a final.

Craig, no need to apologise. I know you are on a mobile device. Tenez can be a stickler for 'facts', but likes his hypotheses a lot.

hawkeye wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:Ah right so statistical facts about ranking points won this season are not for this thread despite it being about the whole ranking system? How odd.

Statistical "facts" and concepts such as ranking points are not always the best way to describe whats going on. The ridiculous ranking points may indicate that Federer is the fourth best player in the world. However watching him play and being aware of what he has achieved it is clear (to me anyway) that this is not the case.

If Federer had to play a match against anyone other than Nadal who would be the favourite to win?

Don't think anyone is saying that Federer has not been one of the greatest players of all time and still is one of the best around. As I said in my first post on this thread I would like to see him play Murray to see how they match up head to head. However the rankings are taken on what players have done in the current year there are no allowances for past performances. In that Murray has scored more points than Federer so deserves his current number 3 position. Federer has still the chance to overtake Murray before year end. If he does I will be happy to say well done.

Agree with you Calder106.

The YTD raknings show much more clearly and statistically, why Murray is ATP #3 while Federer is #4. There are no 'what-if' scenarios.

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Rankings/YTD-Singles.aspx

Federer's 'greatness' index has nothing to do with his current ranking.

There is no question that Federer is in decline and the ranking points are becoming even more difficult to defend or come by given the increase of quality in the lower ranked players.

If we are to use 'career achievements' as ranking points then yes Federer would be streets ahead, but unfortunetly it doesn't work that way.

2011 hasn't been Federer's best year, nor Nadal's for that matter.

Ranking points are also good for up and coming players who deserve some luck in draws at Slams for the hard work and good form they have displayed.

hawkeye wrote:As far as Federer goes ranking points are ridiculous. I refuse to trust a system that makes out he's as low down as four in the world. ... I will pay no more attention to them.

hawkeye wrote:...This thread is not the place for statistical facts unless they are number of grand slams won or number of years at number 1...

hawkeye wrote: Statistical "facts" and concepts such as ranking points are not always the best way to describe whats going on. The ridiculous ranking points may indicate that Federer is the fourth best player in the world ...

You seem to be having difficulty keeping to your resolution of paying no attention to ranking points

Murray has more ranking points from the Slams, no question, and I'm not cribbing who is #3.

I do, though, know that Federer actually came much closer to winning a Slam at two of them than Andy did at any. Murray wasn't really a genuine threat, if you know what I mean

bogbrush wrote:Murray has more ranking points from the Slams, no question, and I'm not cribbing who is #3.

I do, though, know that Federer actually came much closer to winning a Slam at two of them than Andy did at any. Murray wasn't really a genuine threat, if you know what I mean

Having an MP against Djokovic @USO in the fifth set is the same as losing Nadal @RG in straight sets, from a points perspective, though.

I do understand the distinction between the two matches from a contest perspective.

Well I said the points were what they were.

I don't think Murray ever looked remotekly like he was in danger of winning one this year, Federer did.

bogbrush wrote:Well I said the points were what they were.

I don't think Murray ever looked remotekly like he was in danger of winning one this year, Federer did.

Exactly. And Murray overtook Federer because he went to Asia and was helped by Federer and Djoko to turning up there. This is what so far allowed Murray to overtake Federer in the ranking. There is just 1000 difference between Murray and Federer in the YE race and that is Shanghai...more than the slams.

don't get this "luck of the draw" thing, Fed has been drawn in Djokovic's half at all four slams. Now both Federer and Murray have much better records against Djokovic than against Nadal (even in H2Hs this year) so surely that's an advantage for Federer right there?

AO: Both get well beaten by Djokovic, Fed in the semi, Murray in the final.
FO: Both lose to Nadal, though Fed wins a set never really looks like winning.
Wim: Fed loses to lower ranked player in QF. Murray loses to Nadal despite winning first set.
US: Fed loses two set lead to Djokovic, despite having MPs in the last. Murray loses to Nadal in four, never really looked like winning.

So I'd argue Fed had the better FO (by beating Djokovic) and arguably the better Us Open (though who's to say he'd have done better against Nadal than Murray did?). Murray had the better AO and Wimbledon. Apart from that, Murray has five titles to Fed's two, and two Masters to Fed's none, so thoroughly deserves to be ranked ahead at the moment.

It's clear to me that when it comes to grand slams, the top 4 players in order are:

1. Djokovic
2. Nadal
3. Federer
4. Murray

Non grand slam tournaments, I'd rate the players differently somewhat, I'd rate Murray above Federer. This doesn't tell us much though. If your going to say Murray was better in the grand slams this year than Federer because he got to the semi and Fed fell @ the quarters, I really think that's clutching @ straws.

Others have mentioned how much closer Fed's matches were compared to Murray, which is a valid point. Look @ finals both of them reached: Murray dismissed in str8 sets. Fed took one set, lost one in a tie breaker and missed a drop shot on set point in the first. 5 points away from winning in str8 sets, can't be said of Murray.

I could go on in the same vein for each of the grand slams, but I don't really see the point, you can't just look @ stats in isolation without a narrative of what went on. That's why we have match reports in football and in many other sports, no just a simple scoreline. Murray's done well, but when it comes to who you think will win grand slams, Murray isnt someone you'd have as 3rd most likely to win at the moment. That may change in the future and I hope it does.

He deserves to be third at the moment because he's won more tournaments than Fed. Simple as that. Changing how many points you get for grand slams won't change that (i.e. increasing them). I think most would agree that Fed is more likely, even now, to win a slam than Murray. Only thing is, time is ticking away for Fed but not so much so for Murray.

Tenez wrote:

bogbrush wrote:Well I said the points were what they were.

I don't think Murray ever looked remotekly like he was in danger of winning one this year, Federer did.

Exactly. And Murray overtook Federer because he went to Asia and was helped by Federer and Djoko to turning up there. This is what so far allowed Murray to overtake Federer in the ranking. There is just 1000 difference between Murray and Federer in the YE race and that is Shanghai...more than the slams.

You can't blame Murray for Federer taking time out to get himself rested for the last three tournaments. That's the way he has decided to manage his schedule. It could pay off. We will see. Anyway think the gap after today is still 1530 points. Happy to be corrected if wrong.

bogbrush wrote:Murray has more ranking points from the Slams, no question, and I'm not cribbing who is #3.

I do, though, know that Federer actually came much closer to winning a Slam at two of them than Andy did at any. Murray wasn't really a genuine threat, if you know what I mean

Exactly!

Ranking points do not tell the full story. Some ranking points are easier to come by than others. Federer did not play in Aisia. Does that make his serve less tricky to return?

At the risk of invoking a ban upon myself, might I suggest the alternate view to the ranking points being ridiculous, is the OP being ridiculous. Whatever the truth I congratulate the OP for his entertaining theatrics

hawkeye wrote:

bogbrush wrote:Murray has more ranking points from the Slams, no question, and I'm not cribbing who is #3.

I do, though, know that Federer actually came much closer to winning a Slam at two of them than Andy did at any. Murray wasn't really a genuine threat, if you know what I mean

Exactly!

Ranking points do not tell the full story. Some ranking points are easier to come by than others. Federer did not play in Aisia. Does that make his serve less tricky to return?

Don't understand what the relevance of your last sentence to the previous three is.

It has the OP doing another anti-Murray thread. I wish she would give up. Kinda boring! *yawn*

Just kissing the arss of Fed fans.