Ranking Points Are Ridiculous!

First topic message reminder :

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.

Exactly Calder.

The ranking system can have no exceptions to the rules and I am positive Roger Federer wouldn't want it any other way. I mean does the OP want her favourite given an honorary bye through to slam semis and allowed to sit out all other ATP tournaments? If so then could Pete Sampras have that same honour and be given a bye to the semis and Bjorn Borg and Ivan Lendl and Rod Laver. Hold on there are only four semi-spots up for grabs.

Or we could go back to a system similar to what they had at Wimbledon until around 1921 where all the others played a knockout event and then the winner of that played the previous years champion for the title.

Calder106 wrote:Or we could go back to a system similar to what they had at Wimbledon until around 1921 where all the others played a knockout event and then the winner of that played the previous years champion for the title.

No that wouldn't suffice here as Federer is not a champion from this year in any of the slams so we'd need to manufacture another system.

CaledonianCraig wrote:We could use the same argument for yourself fighting in hawkeye's corner as a Federer fan could we not? Read the original post again and tell me what she was getting at then or where she thought Federer should be placed. After all Nadal is ranked 2 and since the OP is quoted as saying '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' then the only place Fed could be seeded to be guaranteed to miss Nadal in the draw at the moment is No.1 is it not?

No, the OP was making the ironic point that this was all that mattered. He was at worst arguing for special case. Nowhere did he argue for #1 - indeed soon Nadal might be #3 in which case are you going to suggest he was campaigning for Federer to be #4?

The reality is that he considered it absurd to describe Federer at the 4th best player. I see his point but I feel that the ranking system accurately describes what it measures, which might be different from who is best/4th best etc.

Well later posts certainly show that the OP is looking for special favours for the system to accommodate Federer. What a hideous idea and one that even your favourite player would just as equally be against. The ranking system is fair and just for everyone so I really cannot see what the OP was hoping to achieve by it can you?

I'm fully with Caledonian Craig on this one. The current ranking system is a totally fair and carefully-designed scheme.

I agree also that Federer - who I understand is still the President of the ATP Players Council - would have no interest whatever in lobbying for any sort of oddball discriminatory scheme by which he or indeed any other player might receive preferential treatment.

As the guy who could perhaps be said to have 'benefitted' more than anyone in history from the ATP ranking system (most consecutive weeks at Number One) Federer will undoubtedly be satisfied that it has served him very nicely, thank you .......

CaledonianCraig wrote:Well later posts certainly show that the OP is looking for special favours for the system to accommodate Federer. What a hideous idea and one that even your favourite player would just as equally be against. The ranking system is fair and just for everyone so I really cannot see what the OP was hoping to achieve by it can you?

I have no idea, and I never endorsed the idea that the ranking system is "wrong" or that other actions should be implemented.

All I have ever supported him on is the fact that he did not, as Jubbahey alleged and you tried to support, claim Federer should be appointed #1 in defiance of the points system. People have been whittering on about correct standards of debate and on this thread both a former moderator and yourself have acted in a manner to create a false strawman in the OPs argument to knock over. Poor form, in my book.

The OP wasn't clear either way and confusion comes about from the misty-eyed comment about Federer should be kept seperate half of the draw (odd enough for a start) now as things stand the only way that would happen is if Federer was No. 1 is it not? That is how I understand it.

bogbrush wrote:...but I feel that the ranking system accurately describes what it measures, which might be different from who is best/4th best etc.

The ranking system is not perfect science. It woudl be perfect for golf for instance as everybody has the same course to perform. But in tennis players fight against each other and the makes teh difference between going out in the first round or reaching the 1/4f, semi or even final. That's why the it's constantly moving and teh system is teh best I can think of. However, it's far from perfect and accurate....except for the clear number 1. The number 2 for instance can benefit from a very priviledge position of having to meet the number 1 only in finals. However the number 2 ranking might actually the real number 3 or 4.

I don;t care whether Federer is 3rd or 4th but say the ranking doesn;t lie is simply wrong. It's not perfect science, far from it.

CaledonianCraig wrote:The OP wasn't clear either way and confusion comes about from the misty-eyed comment about Federer should be kept seperate half of the draw (odd enough for a start) now as things stand the only way that would happen is if Federer was No. 1 is it not? That is how I understand it.

If he'd meant that he could have said it.

I don't know why this is going on except in some bizarre "last word" scenario, but actually it irritates me when those who pontificate about conduct then come on and do all the stuff they complain others do. Jubb was wrong.

I thought 'Zyxt' was the last word.
Although in a truly bizarre last word scenario, it would be 'aardvark'.

bogbrush wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:The OP wasn't clear either way and confusion comes about from the misty-eyed comment about Federer should be kept seperate half of the draw (odd enough for a start) now as things stand the only way that would happen is if Federer was No. 1 is it not? That is how I understand it.

If he'd meant that he could have said it.

I don't know why this is going on except in some bizarre "last word" scenario, but actually it irritates me when those who pontificate about conduct then come on and do all the stuff they complain others do. Jubb was wrong.

Probably because you want the last word.

Calder106 wrote:

bogbrush wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:The OP wasn't clear either way and confusion comes about from the misty-eyed comment about Federer should be kept seperate half of the draw (odd enough for a start) now as things stand the only way that would happen is if Federer was No. 1 is it not? That is how I understand it.

If he'd meant that he could have said it.

I don't know why this is going on except in some bizarre "last word" scenario, but actually it irritates me when those who pontificate about conduct then come on and do all the stuff they complain others do. Jubb was wrong.

Probably because you want the last word.

I thought I was accepting partial culpability for that.

There's a few people today steaming in before reading.

"I thought I was accepting partial culpability for that."

I've re-read but still don't see where your accepting partial culpability. However lets disagree on that and get on to discussing tennis.

I think there's nothing wrong with the rankings.

At number one you have the guy who has won 3 slams this year.
Number two the guy who has won the remaining slam.
Number three has won 2 Masters 1000.

At number four you get Federer who is the best of the remaining players who have won little of note this year, but the Swiss has performed consistently better at the slams than those other guys. Fourth place suits him well and is still an amazing ranking for a 30-year old.

I think someone has had a humour bypass on here

Tenez wrote:

bogbrush wrote:...but I feel that the ranking system accurately describes what it measures, which might be different from who is best/4th best etc.

The ranking system is not perfect science. It woudl be perfect for golf for instance as everybody has the same course to perform. But in tennis players fight against each other and the makes teh difference between going out in the first round or reaching the 1/4f, semi or even final. That's why the it's constantly moving and teh system is teh best I can think of. However, it's far from perfect and accurate....except for the clear number 1. The number 2 for instance can benefit from a very priviledge position of having to meet the number 1 only in finals. However the number 2 ranking might actually the real number 3 or 4.

I don;t care whether Federer is 3rd or 4th but say the ranking doesn;t lie is simply wrong. It's not perfect science, far from it.

Good points Tenez, and I fully agree. The rankings are a discrete approximation to a true underlying state, i.e. a players current level, which can vary from day to day, even within a match. That is too granular, but too much faith should not be placed in the system as is. Players playing in different tournaments complicates things further, as do withdrawals. The system is not 'intelligent' enough to give less points if the top few guys are missing, say. The players deserve their rankings, given the points system is correct.

Positively 4th Street wrote:

Tenez wrote:

bogbrush wrote:...but I feel that the ranking system accurately describes what it measures, which might be different from who is best/4th best etc.

The ranking system is not perfect science. It woudl be perfect for golf for instance as everybody has the same course to perform. But in tennis players fight against each other and the makes teh difference between going out in the first round or reaching the 1/4f, semi or even final. That's why the it's constantly moving and teh system is teh best I can think of. However, it's far from perfect and accurate....except for the clear number 1. The number 2 for instance can benefit from a very priviledge position of having to meet the number 1 only in finals. However the number 2 ranking might actually the real number 3 or 4.

I don;t care whether Federer is 3rd or 4th but say the ranking doesn;t lie is simply wrong. It's not perfect science, far from it.

Good points Tenez, and I fully agree. The rankings are a discrete approximation to a true underlying state, i.e. a players current level, which can vary from day to day, even within a match. That is too granular, but too much faith should not be placed in the system as is. Players playing in different tournaments complicates things further, as do withdrawals. The system is not 'intelligent' enough to give less points if the top few guys are missing, say. The players deserve their rankings, given the points system is correct.

Great comments.

Glad you made sense of it +4s. Re-reading my post I couldn't!

But yes , in short, ATP ranking is a relative ranking system though the best I can think of considering the nature of the game.

This ranking system tell us who accumulated most points and that in turn gives us a fair but not accurate idea of how the players rank in terms of their tennis.

agreed.

I agree that for some the ranking system leaves a lot to be desired, but in all fairness, the top 4 do not meet until the semis anyway, as they are placed at opposite sides and top and bottom of each half, in a slam at any rate.

Most injuries are self inflicted, not all, but most are a result of either over indulgence in training sessions or on the court. Physiological differences between players make this happen more often in the fight to remain on court, but the ranking system can not be bettered as an indicator of how each top player has performed over the year. The fact that they have to defend their rank the next year only exemplifies the previous results based on the need to accumulate enough points to remain or better their rank.

But for the top 4 or 6, I think the system is an accurate meter to performance levels at the major events, including the Masters.

Jubbahey wrote:But for the top 4 or 6, I think the system is an accurate meter to performance levels at the major events, including the Masters.

Actually not. if over 12 months 3 and 4 are beaten by 1 and 2 then you want to know how 3 and 4 would fare against each other to see who is actually 3rd and who is 4th.

However, according to the last 12 months what we have is:

Federer v Murray 1/0 (Masters played almost a year ago). Nothing indicates that Murray is better than Federer. However he certainly accumulated more points. But one can accumulate points without meeting the people ranked above which might not give, again, an accurate reflexion of the ranking.

legendkillar wrote:I might throw some much needed fuel on this fire and say yes I agree ranking points are ridiculous that someone can hold the number 2 ranking despite not winning titles on any other surface other than clay this year

Totally agreed. If they only bother with clay tournaments, they should be awarded the no. 1 ranking instantly.

As it turns out, all surfaces give equal ranking points. That's madness. They should be weighted as follows:

For example, a Masters 1000 tournament. If you win the tournament on clay, you should earn 1000 points. On a slow hard court, 600 points, on anything else, 50 points.

Interestingly, by the above logic, winning the first round in a Masters tournament on a weak surface would earn you (byes excepted) 2.25 ranking points - total justice.

Golf rankings weight the tournaments given the field within certain bands. Maybe that could be done with tennis tournaments - give a 250 a band between, say, 200 and 350 and a 500 a band between, say, 400 and 600, a TMS between 700 and 1000, but leave a slam as it is.

For example, winning at Doha usually more impressive than quite a few 500's.

The problem is that because tennis is knockout the fields have to be smaller than in a sport like golf - they can have 100 plus every week, but tennis cannot do that. It would make the system wholly unpredictable so that a "Race to London" would be more like a game of blindman's buff.

Rankings serve a purpose and they work well I think.

wow wrote: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.

Surely if you were the true No1 it wouldn't matter if the other players were "injured" or not ?

erictheblueuk wrote:

wow wrote: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.

Surely if you were the true No1 it wouldn't matter if the other players were "injured" or not ?

Typically yes but not in this era where physicality can be the main weapon with top players sacrifying their bodies for a shorter stay at the very top. If one can't stay at number 1 because one has "abused" his body, then too bad.

barrystar wrote:Golf rankings weight the tournaments given the field within certain bands. Maybe that could be done with tennis tournaments - give a 250 a band between, say, 200 and 350 and a 500 a band between, say, 400 and 600, a TMS between 700 and 1000, but leave a slam as it is.

For example, winning at Doha usually more impressive than quite a few 500's.

The problem is that because tennis is knockout the fields have to be smaller than in a sport like golf - they can have 100 plus every week, but tennis cannot do that. It would make the system wholly unpredictable so that a "Race to London" would be more like a game of blindman's buff.

Rankings serve a purpose and they work well I think.

I didn't realise that about golf, good knowledge bstar. This could be applied to tennis, one way is for the maximum points to be the same as the current points but then scale down as appropriate, i.e. all the top guys play then it's worth 250, if a few are absent then scale the 250 down accordingly. The drawback is that the lay tennis fan would then have no, or little, idea what as going on and most folk like to look at the rankings and make a prediction or two. Any alternative to the current system may end up like Duckworth-Lewis in cricket, i.e. nigh-on incomprehensible.