Nadal Should Be Number One?

If tennis adopted a 2 year ranking system instead of the present 1 year system this is what the present rankings would be

https://2img.net/h/oi42.tinypic.com/23m397m.jpg

The big difference is that Nadal would be at number 1

hawkeye wrote:If tennis adopted a 2 year ranking system instead of the present 1 year system this is what the present rankings would be

https://2img.net/h/oi42.tinypic.com/23m397m.jpg

The big difference is that Nadal would be at number 1

Very interesting.

Who would be number one if tennis adopted a five year ranking system instead of the present 1 year system?

Who would be #1 with a 10 year ranking? Oh Hell, why not just make it a lifetime thing and leave it at that?

It just goes to show what a great guy Rafa was to selflessly press for this.

And I am still surprised Nadal woudl be teh number in a 2y ranking cause clearly Djoko accumulated so many more points.

But it just shows how ridiculous a 2 year ranking would be! teh number one being beaten 6 straight times by the number 2 and bagelled by the number 3!

Thanks heavens it did not go through but it just says how desperate Nadal is and this is so different from the humble image he is trying to convey!

I don't know where Hawkeye's link is from, but I think you'll find that the 2010 points would be differently weighted on a sliding scale of sorts so that Djoko would probably still be No. 1 - but he would have been No. 1 for a shorter period.

That said, it is interesting to note that the big loser on Hawkeye's list is Del Potro - the 2-yr system was said to be designed to protect top players who suffer injury...

Nadal is nonetheless very low in my estimation for so apparently striving to change the rules off court as well as failing to observe them on court to suit his attritional style. Unless he changes his attitude I look forward to when he is no longer one of the top players with such an influential voice.

barrystar wrote:
Nadal is nonetheless very low in my estimation for so apparently striving to change the rules off court as well as failing to observe them on court to suit his attritional style. Unless he changes his attitude I look forward to when he is no longer one of the top players with such an influential voice.

My moderated thought!

While he does show some humility, for example writing letters to the ball balls at each Slam event. In this instance he hasn't covered himself in glory with ideas on the tour and how it should be run when the highest beneficiary would be himself. I am not however going to ask him to be whipped for supporting such ideas as it would be common place for anyone in a position where they would look some comfort that would benefit them. Sure I have no doubt he would bend the rules to the limit in skipping events to preserve himself for the big events. He should look at the Williams. They pick and choose their schedule and do not bemoan the ranking system. They play who is put in front of them. I smell fear on Rafa's behalf that he would not fancy facing 4/5 seeds at a Slam event.

There isn't anything set in stone for him to play every event. If he meets his quota of 'mandatory' events, there is nothing to stop him skipping events. Depends how much he values the sport and his career long term.

What does "being bagelled by the no 3" have to do with anything? How many times has the number 3 beaten Rafa in the past 2 years?

Nole certainly deserves his ranking but there's nothing odious about Nadal advocating his interests. He's no different from the others and it's his prerogative to air his views.

legendkillar wrote:While he does show some humility, for example writing letters to the ball balls at each Slam event. In this instance he hasn't covered himself in glory with ideas on the tour and how it should be run when the highest beneficiary would be himself. I am not however going to ask him to be whipped for supporting such ideas as it would be common place for anyone in a position where they would look some comfort that would benefit them. Sure I have no doubt he would bend the rules to the limit in skipping events to preserve himself for the big events. He should look at the Williams. They pick and choose their schedule and do not bemoan the ranking system. They play who is put in front of them. I smell fear on Rafa's behalf that he would not fancy facing 4/5 seeds at a Slam event.

There isn't anything set in stone for him to play every event. If he meets his quota of 'mandatory' events, there is nothing to stop him skipping events. Depends how much he values the sport and his career long term.

But what's puzzling is that it is very easy to play a tournament being tired. You lose first round and that's it. Djoko and Federer do it. That makes everybody happy: tournement organisers, fans, and even his opponent. And it's not tanking. It;s just losing a tennis match because tired, like you are injured. I agree they shoudl not do it too often but frankly, how can we explain that Nadal is tired playing less than a match per week for the last 4 weeks of the season?

Why changing rules and the whole schedule because one or 2 players are tired? doesn't make sense to me!

Sending letters to ball boys? great! Does he know them all personally?

Nadal's viewpoint is not exactly in the minority. I don't really understand what's so wrong in promulgating his concerns and reservations which mirror that of many on tour and which - as a tour leader - he has the responsibility of speaking for others.

The fact it incidentally favours a physical player like him should be irrelevant in the circumstances.

mthierry wrote:....Nadal advocating his interests. He's no different from the others and it's his prerogative to air his views.

Yes there is! It's called egoism! if you are pleading for a system which is not fair...you are not fair! It is the current system that allowed him to thrive and make a decent living. Why wanting more of it? Greed!

Tenez wrote:

legendkillar wrote:While he does show some humility, for example writing letters to the ball balls at each Slam event. In this instance he hasn't covered himself in glory with ideas on the tour and how it should be run when the highest beneficiary would be himself. I am not however going to ask him to be whipped for supporting such ideas as it would be common place for anyone in a position where they would look some comfort that would benefit them. Sure I have no doubt he would bend the rules to the limit in skipping events to preserve himself for the big events. He should look at the Williams. They pick and choose their schedule and do not bemoan the ranking system. They play who is put in front of them. I smell fear on Rafa's behalf that he would not fancy facing 4/5 seeds at a Slam event.

There isn't anything set in stone for him to play every event. If he meets his quota of 'mandatory' events, there is nothing to stop him skipping events. Depends how much he values the sport and his career long term.

But what's puzzling is that it is very easy to play a tournament being tired. You lose first round and that's it. Djoko and Federer do it. That makes everybody happy: tournement organisers, fans, and even his opponent. And it's not tanking. It;s just losing a tennis match because tired, like you are injured. I agree they shoudl not do it too often but frankly, how can we explain that Nadal is tired playing less than a match per week for the last 4 weeks of the season?

Why changing rules and the whole schedule because one or 2 players are tired? doesn't make sense to me!

Sending letters to ball boys? great! Does he know them all personally?

Sandbagging the first round of an event due to fatigue built from playing other touraments isn't such a massive deal. Yes it may annoy the fans who want to see their favourites, but also it offers the opportunity to lower ranked players and this is scoffed at for the top players not 'performing'

I think we all know the reason he wants them changed and even the most biased Nadal fan would agree a protected ranking offers no benefit to lower ranked players and would stiffle the sport and ruin future prospects. It was a selfish idea and I think himself would agree that it serves on his 'best' interests.

The ball boy story is true. I think however it is a collective letter, much rather than individual ones which the story teller failed to imply whilst sharing the story.

legendkillar wrote:
The ball boy story is true. I think however it is a collective letter, much rather than individual ones which the story teller failed to imply whilst sharing the story.

Yeah right! I'd rather have a Pizza from Federer or Clijsters!

Interesting to note that all of the other players at the O2 favoured a 2-year ranking, with Federer the lone dissenting voice. I think this does him great credit as it happens, but just wanted to say that Nadal is not alone in wanting the 2-year system.

Even it were to come in to operation I wouldn't think it would be applied retrospectively so no danger for Djokovic.

Positively 4th Street wrote:Interesting to note that all of the other players at the O2 favoured a 2-year ranking, with Federer the lone dissenting voice. I think this does him great credit as it happens, but just wanted to say that Nadal is not alone in wanting the 2-year system.

Any reference to that?

Don't agree with two year ranking at all.

However dont agree with this statement either :
'But what's puzzling is that it is very easy to play a tournament being tired. You lose first round and that's it. Djoko and Federer do it. That makes everybody happy: tournement organisers, fans, and even his opponent. And it's not tanking. It;s just losing a tennis match because tired, like you are injured '

If you are not going to try to win a tournament you shouldn't play in it. What about the lower ranked player who doesn't get to play because someone who is tired and going to lose in the first round takes up a slot in the draw thus losing the chance to gain ranking points.

A one year ranking system isn't written in stone.

Nore Staat and bogbrush

No one is suggesting a 5 year or 10 year system. I think that would be silly and I suspect you do to.

I'm not sure why being presented with some cold hard figures has gone off topic to posters reasons for disliking the number two ranked player (under the present system). The figures show that over two years he has accumulated more ranking points than any other player.

legendkiller. I think it is despicable that Nadal doesn't write personal letters to all ball boys. And what about the ball girls? I've noticed he's kept quiet about them.

Positively 4th Street wrote:Interesting to note that all of the other players at the O2 favoured a 2-year ranking, with Federer the lone dissenting voice.

I never heard anyone else mention it.

Yes, it was in Monday's Times - caught my eye as I was quite surprised. I've included the relevant part verbatim below as it's a subscription site only:

"The Times understands that at the Barclays ATP World Tour Finals in November, all the players bar Federer aligned themselves to the call for a two-year ranking system that affords better protection against the ever-present threat of injuries in a game of such physical demands on hard courts. That got several players’ backs up."

Interesting. I remember Fed's argument was that it would work against the lower-ranked players and in favour of the top players and that he had to represent all players, not just the top ones (including himself).

hawkeye wrote:A one year ranking system isn't written in stone.

Nore Staat and bogbrush

No one is suggesting a 5 year or 10 year system. I think that would be silly and I suspect you do to.I'm not sure why being presented with some cold hard figures has gone off topic to posters reasons for disliking the number two ranked player (under the present system). The figures show that over two years he has accumulated more ranking points than any other player.

legendkiller. I think it is despicable that Nadal doesn't write personal letters to all ball boys. And what about the ball girls? I've noticed he's kept quiet about them.

I'm merely mocking the stupid idea of a two year system. The one year system means the whole range of the sports schedule is counted, and he who has done best over the last circuit is the current #1.

Only 1 year has any authentic meaning. Two year is manipulation, so why not 5, 10 or 50? Federer would break all the #1 records forever on that basis!

JHM,

It was, and I agree with him. I'd like to know Del Potro's view, as he was cited directly as someone it would benefit by Nadal. I would expect very different opinions from higher/lower ranked players and also perhaps from those who have suffered injuries and those who have not.

Calder106 wrote:
If you are not going to try to win a tournament you shouldn't play in it. What about the lower ranked player who doesn't get to play because someone who is tired and going to lose in the first round takes up a slot in the draw thus losing the chance to gain ranking points.

It will help another player. Lower ranked players are all benefiting by having top players entering it. It works for everybody.

You coudl say all matches lost are tanked cause I doubt everybody gives 100% in all the points, all the matches....including Nadal.

So the line between tanking and not tanking is invisible. In any case there is no shame in losing in teh first round and this is what those top players seem to want to avoid at all cost.

Positively 4th Street wrote:JHM,

It was, and I agree with him. I'd like to know Del Potro's view, as he was cited directly as someone it would benefit by Nadal. I would expect very different opinions from higher/lower ranked players and also perhaps from those who have suffered injuries and those who have not.

But he would be rushing back to top flight tennis and playing whilst not fully fit. For me being ranked so lowly due to injury and then playing your way back isn't such a bad thing. Easing your way back via Challenger events is not such a bad thing. If I was making a comeback with my ranking protected and played against a Murray or Djokovic, it could even cause further injuries caused by lack of practice.

There is no guarantee that when someone is injured and is ranked 12 in world is not going to comeback from a long injury lay off and play at the level of 12 in the world ranked player.

ffs, what's all this garbage?

You're injured, tough. Come back and rebuild your ranking. I'm bored with this selfish manipulation masquerading as charity.

legendkillar wrote:

Positively 4th Street wrote:JHM,

It was, and I agree with him. I'd like to know Del Potro's view, as he was cited directly as someone it would benefit by Nadal. I would expect very different opinions from higher/lower ranked players and also perhaps from those who have suffered injuries and those who have not.

But he would be rushing back to top flight tennis and playing whilst not fully fit. For me being ranked so lowly due to injury and then playing your way back isn't such a bad thing. Easing your way back via Challenger events is not such a bad thing. If I was making a comeback with my ranking protected and played against a Murray or Djokovic, it could even cause further injuries caused by lack of practice.

There is no guarantee that when someone is injured and is ranked 12 in world is not going to comeback from a long injury lay off and play at the level of 12 in the world ranked player.

I agree with that lk. Starting in Challengers is pretty much how Agassi clawed his way back, much better to build momentum that way. I was just trying to say that players may have different viewpoints based on both their ranking and their own experience/troubles with injury.

I just think it's wrong on the guy who is denied the ranking rise because the other guy gets protected.

Positively 4th Street wrote:

legendkillar wrote:

Positively 4th Street wrote:JHM,

It was, and I agree with him. I'd like to know Del Potro's view, as he was cited directly as someone it would benefit by Nadal. I would expect very different opinions from higher/lower ranked players and also perhaps from those who have suffered injuries and those who have not.

But he would be rushing back to top flight tennis and playing whilst not fully fit. For me being ranked so lowly due to injury and then playing your way back isn't such a bad thing. Easing your way back via Challenger events is not such a bad thing. If I was making a comeback with my ranking protected and played against a Murray or Djokovic, it could even cause further injuries caused by lack of practice.

There is no guarantee that when someone is injured and is ranked 12 in world is not going to comeback from a long injury lay off and play at the level of 12 in the world ranked player.

I agree with that lk. Starting in Challengers is pretty much how Agassi clawed his way back, much better to build momentum that way. I was just trying to say that players may have different viewpoints based on both their ranking and their own experience/troubles with injury.

Players will struggle for such a justification for it without it seeming fair and selfish. For example if Murray pulled out of Cincinnatti and cited 'injury' yet he would play at the US Open, how would he justify being able to retain the points without swinging a racquet? It would be exploited to the hilt!

As I pointed out, on Hawkeye's table Del Potro loses the most places relative to his current ranking because he accumulated so few points in 2010.

I agree with BB - when coming back from injury if you are good enough you'll quickly accumulate enough points to be back up there, like Del Potro. If not others get their chance.

If a player has a protected ranking that his current form does not begin to justify it would just skew the draw for everybody else. Injuries are sad and unfair, but I don't understand why the unfairness has to be visited on others, particulary in a non-contact sport when the individual player invariably has to take more responsibility for the cause of his injury than if, for example, he'd been kicked up in the air by Vinnie Jones.

Tenez wrote:

Calder106 wrote:
If you are not going to try to win a tournament you shouldn't play in it. What about the lower ranked player who doesn't get to play because someone who is tired and going to lose in the first round takes up a slot in the draw thus losing the chance to gain ranking points.

It will help another player. Lower ranked players are all benefiting by having top players entering it. It works for everybody.

You coudl say all matches lost are tanked cause I doubt everybody gives 100% in all the points, all the matches....including Nadal.

So the line between tanking and not tanking is invisible. In any case there is no shame in losing in teh first round and this is what those top players seem to want to avoid at all cost.

Your argument on this does not make complete sense and you also contradict your earlier point. Yes if a player does not try in a tournament (whether first or subsequent rounds) it benefits the player who they are not giving their best against however someone who wants to be in the tournament and cannot get in because someone who has no intention of giving it their full effort has taken that place.

I must say I am in two minds about Tenez's 'tanking' point - or perhaps it's the way he puts it.

After the Davydenko situation being seen too obviously not to try in a match is probably quite a hot potato and I think that the general attitude of the top players is and should be that they play to win.

However, there's a difference between playing to win and preparing to win; they don't necessarily need to work themselves to peak condition for every tournament provided that they ensure that their condition is such that they don't take any injury risk. If that's what Tenez is saying I quite agree - there's no shame in turning up at a tournament in decent but not peak condition/form and doing your best. You'll probably get beaten after a couple of rounds.

It's no secret that Nadal does not play Queens to walk out the outright winner every year, but to get his eye in for Wimbledon. Similarly at Canada/Cincinnati you often see a different level of performance between the tournaments from the top players who don't bust a gut for both, but use the combination as USO preparation and play harder at one than the other - those tournaments are also not taken so seriously by all the top players in an Olympic year. There are several other examples - Doha being another obvious one.

I think it's greedy to insist on a reduction of mandatory tournaments or the season to the detriment of journeyman players who need volume and one or two high value tournaments to make money because of the inability of very few at the top to be at absolute peak condition for more than a few tournaments which they believe that they should have a chance of winning each time they play.

Calder106 wrote:Your argument on this does not make complete sense and you also contradict your earlier point. Yes if a player does not try in a tournament (whether first or subsequent rounds) it benefits the player who they are not giving their best against however someone who wants to be in the tournament and cannot get in because someone who has no intention of giving it their full effort has taken that place.

But that's not an argument cause the rule now is that the top seeds are forced to take the space of more willing lower-ranked players, which clearly shows the importance of top players.

Affecting one lower ranked player is irrelevant compared to the benefit of all the other ranked players. Those lower ranked players know how important it is to have stars in the game. It makes their richer too, so losing a space for a lower ranked player out of 64 is a very small price they woudl all be happy to pay. When they enter a draw they want that draw to look good, not like another ATP250 looking more like a challenger. They know the money a big name will bring will be of benefit to them. They play in empty stadium all year round so they love the star players...directly or indirectly.

legendkillar wrote:

Positively 4th Street wrote:I agree with that lk. Starting in Challengers is pretty much how Agassi clawed his way back, much better to build momentum that way. I was just trying to say that players may have different viewpoints based on both their ranking and their own experience/troubles with injury.

Players will struggle for such a justification for it without it seeming fair and selfish. For example if Murray pulled out of Cincinnatti and cited 'injury' yet he would play at the US Open, how would he justify being able to retain the points without swinging a racquet? It would be exploited to the hilt!

That doesn't mean they won't have those opinions though. Expecting public utterances to be fair and unselfish is expecting a lot. I am totally behind the one-year ranking, but expecting uniformity of opinion from the players is unrealistic, however self-serving it may make them look.

barrystar wrote:However, there's a difference between playing to win and preparing to win; they don't necessarily need to work themselves to peak condition for every tournament provided that they ensure that their condition is such that they don't take any injury risk. If that's what Tenez is saying I quite agree - there's no shame in turning up at a tournament in decent but not peak condition/form and doing your best. You'll probably get beaten after a couple of rounds.

It's no secret that Nadal does not play Queens to walk out the outright winner every year, but to get his eye in for Wimbledon. Similarly at Canada/Cincinnati you often see a different level of performance between the tournaments from the top players who don't bust a gut for both, but use the combination as USO preparation and play harder at one than the other - those tournaments are also not taken so seriously by all the top players in an Olympic year. There are several other examples - Doha being another obvious one.

I think it's greedy to insist on a reduction of mandatory tournaments or the season to the detriment of journeyman players who need volume and one or two high value tournaments to make money because of the inability of very few at the top to be at absolute peak condition for more than a few tournaments which they believe that they should have a chance of winning each time they play.

Other examples, Federer losing to Beneteau in Paris 2 years ago or losing to Wawrinka in MC. Tanking not tanking? who knows, who cares? It made the parisian crowd happy, the organisers too and 2 years later we have no way to say he surely tanked even though he did.

The Davydenko situation was terrible cause Davydenko for sure on that occasion was not tanking and got really angry cause he coudl not find his serve (if I remember correctly). The ATP apologised after that.

Again, How short should the season be so that Nadal plays less than 10 matches in the last 4 months of the year????

It would be more convincing if as well as arguing for the introduction of a shorter season the top players argued for slightly faster conditions to shortern matches so that they are less draining, but they don't.....

I suspect they realise the benefit for the crowd of having long and impressive rallies making the game more popular.

As I said, it;s easier for the crowd at large to appreciate the effort of a player in retrieving an impossible ball and keep the rally going than a flat SHBH winner along the line.

And this is why tournament organisers have opted for slow conds for now.

Is not some players' unhappiness with Federer about MONEY rather than ranking. The lower-paid ones are - possible rightly - upset about early-round GS prize money not going up very much, while the big earners will be getting even more.
The two-year ranking is ridiculous, as the sight of Tiger Woods still number one in golf was when he had not even played for many weeks.
Rafa has either got to play less, play less intensely, win more easily or get even fitter. Seems he's got rattled not because he's no longer number one but that Djoko beat him last year AT HIS OWN GAME.
You used to be able to blast Rafa off the court or just play brilliantly to beat him. Now here's a guy that can OUTLAST AND OUTRUN him. His answer - give me more time between the tournaments. Well, it aint gonna happen and nor should it.

Barrystar

I agree with a lot of what you say especially where you talk about someone not being at their peak but still giving their best and going as far as they can. I do think however when someone is just not right and feels that by playing in the tournament they will iether aggrate an existing injury or not really be prepared to give their best they should pull out. Federer did it for Shanghai and Nadal for Paris. I have no issue with that.

I don't see the questioning of the number of mandatory tournaments as being detrimental to the lower ranked players. Your example of Canada/Cincy is a good one. If both tournaments were not mandatory how many of the top players would play in both. Some wouldn't but this would allow others lower down in the pecking order to compete. I think Cincy especially was devalued in 2011 because of where it comes in the calendar.

I understand that these tournaments want all the top players there but if they are not getting these players fully committed it does devalue things.

the slow conditions thing is cyclical I think. Basically in the 90s conditions were getting too fast, matches becoming dull (particularly wimbledon), so the tour responded by slowing things down. In a few years, when they wise up to the fact people are fed up with every single court speed being the same (there's still a bit of difference in the bounce between clay and IH), they'll un-uniformise things again.

I'm not advocating faster conditions necessarily, but more variety would be nice. Players shouldn't be able to play the same game on every surface and win.

Federer does seem to be moaning about fast conditions recently. Began after Nadal won USO. He said USO 2010 was fast then but according to him was slow in 2011. A year makes a difference i guess.
Ironically, the faster the condition, the more MPs he chokes. Paris 2010 was fast, he managed 5 MPs there, all choked. So can't see how such a condition will benefit him.

I'm surprised Nadal isn't calling for faster conditions, after all he can't do worse against his successor than last year can he?

also, on the two year ranking thing, I assumed it would be a rolling ranking like today, but over two years instead of one. Can't make sense of the gold one TBH. If it were as I said, then Murray skipping Cinci would mean he'd get no points from it this year, so it would affect him.

Great system, that can allow a guy to be in the top 10 two years after retirement.

Imagine qualifying for the WTF when you've been retired for a year.

This aint Golf or Snooker this is a real sport.

bogbrush wrote:I'm surprised Nadal isn't calling for faster conditions, after all he can't do worse against his successor than last year can he?

Yes he could...not even meeting him in the finals anymore! However he'd be fresh all year round...and maybe would want a longer season to make ends meet!

The one year rolling ranking system is fine and appropriate for tennis.

The ranking system for Tennis is used for seeding and hence determining the draws in tournaments. A two year ranking system would be less appropriate for determining current form and would dramatically affect the structure of tournaments. The period of peak form for tennis players, as well as career longevity is significantly shorter than for Golf (whcih has a weight two year ranking system). For Golf the ranking system is not used for seeding in the draws, as the main tournaments in Golf (the majors etc) are not played as a one on one knockout competition. In addition Tennis has a history of ranking on a one year rolling system. Any changes to this will disconnect tennis from its history.

a few points:

to whoever said that the Williams Sisters dont moan about the ranking - they do. one of them does. google it up. however they dont have much to moan about because its by choice that they pick and choose which event they play.

secondly, at the WTF it was only the top 8 that were talked to, i dont think all players were consulted, so " most players agree with 2 year ranking.." is false.

granted, the top 10 players have more of a voice in how the tour is run.

almost everyone is out to look out for themselves, Nadal and Federer included. in this particular instance, Nadal and Djokovic and for that matter, Murray too, play a much more physical brand of tennis than Federer and hence all three would obviously prefer a 2 year ranking.

Federer is not a saint, but what he says about helping the lower ranked players and also those with injury to come up the ranking does make a lot of sense.

i dont think a 2 year ranking will come to pass, however i do think Federer will increasingly get sidelined at the Council and might step down or be not elected next time round.

A 2 year ranking system where all points from the last 2 years count equally is not great for me. It means what happened a week or two ago counts the same as what happened 1 year 11 months ago, which for me does not make sense. (You'd also have the odd curiosity of the points to defend at a tournament being from 2 years before.) It also excessively hampers young players meaning they would be ranked and seeded below their true potency.

I have always favoured a system where the points are divided in half on December 31st, and no points ever drop off as such. That way, the current calendar year's points count as 1, and all previous years count as just <1, 0.5 for the year before, 0.25 weight for the year before that (because they have been halved twice), 0.125 for the year before that and so on. It seems the perfect balance between the 2 and 1 year systems and also has the key advantage of removing the annoying points to defend calculations. Ranking projections would be easier to calculate even mid tournament just by adding points.

This system has never been popular when I suggest it, but I suspect that this is just because people are not really giving it fair consideration and are just going with a "don't change it if it isn't broke" approach to support the current system. The only main objection I get is that clay courters would be too highly ranked for Wimbledon and maybe other grass tournaments. That's correct, but it just means Wimbledon would have to use its own seeding as it has in the past so is not a serious objection to the system for me.

Yeah..don't change it if ain't broken!

Nothing wrong with the ranking as it is.

That's a non -argument in a way. If everyone since the beginning of time took that attitiude of don't fix if not broken we would still be in the stone age forraging for berries, infact I doubt we would have got that far! Doing things differently is how society advances. Surely it makes more sense to consider my system versus the current system and draw up a list of pros of cons. Of course, it is to be fair necessary to have more than a very slight advantage to overcome the initial hassle and confusion of changing. So if your argument were to be that my system is actually no better or worse than the current system, so stick rather than twist, then fair enough. But to me the never having to look at the points to defend stuff is a major advantage, so is the fact that you don't have the nonsense of the current system where points from a week ago count the same as points from 11 months 3 weeks ago but points from a further 2 weeks ago count for nothing at all! At least my system has some sensible grading, while retaining and even increasing simplicity. It has the right balance of not excessively weighting points from 2 years ago (Djokovic would still correctly be #1 in my system) as well.

On another topic, Nadal would not get the benefit of his 2010 points if a system of 2-year ranking were introduced because it probably woudn't be introduced fast enough. More likely to benefit Djokovic for a while depending on when it might be introduced. We can say that any player who has already reached their peak or around there is likely to get a slight benefit from the 2-year system change. They would gain a net benefit because they haven't had to be slowed down by it as a 19 or 20 year old moving up the ranking, but would get the benefit of being held up by it as they fall down. So it would benefit Nadal a little when his time comes to fall down the rankings (assuming he doesn't retire at his peak of course).

Great change the ranking system. I have no idea why, but go ahead.

Just one thing, I'm more interested in who has been the best player over the last year than the "number 1". Where will I be able to find that?