Who's For A Two Year Ranking System Now?

First topic message reminder :

Fedal meeting in the quarters of any tournament. (Pftt!)

The number 4 ranked player being destroyed by the number 5 ranked player (6-0, 6-2).

The best clay court player in history, holder of 7RG titles and likely holder of the majority this years clay court masters titles being seeded 5th for RG.

Murray seeded 2nd at RG

Djokovic perhaps playing the 2nd best clay court tennis this year but going out in the quarters of RG

Quarter finals tickets suddenly leaping in value whilst finals tickets suddenly plummeting and even remaining unused...

Why was the seeding system introduced? Wasn't it to prevent things like this? Who's for a two year ranking system now?

I am, as always, in favour of no points ever dropping off, but your points are divided in half on December 31st.
This year's points would count at 100%.
Last year's at 50%.
The previous years at 25% (having been divided twice).
The previous year at 12.5%.
etc

Yeah, that's my view. I wouldn't be against a surface specialist ranking for RG. However, it can't be brought in to deal with a one-off situation. Either has to be for all years or not at all.

Tennis is too reactive for a two year system let only a four year. Look at Donald Young. Top 30 odd at the end of 2011. Couldnt win a match in 2012. Surely it makes sense for him to be ranked around 200 rather than potentially still being top 50 or so based on 2011 results?

Henman Bill wrote:I am, as always, in favour of no points ever dropping off, but your points are divided in half on December 31st.
This year's points would count at 100%.
Last year's at 50%.
The previous years at 25% (having been divided twice).
The previous year at 12.5%.
etc

Djokovic could be out injured for 4 years and still be in the top 100

Red wrote:

LuvSports! wrote:same as the tour down under bent their rules in allowing, at the time, 7 times tdf winner lance armstrong back before he was supposed to race in 2009...

Yes because the French Open changing the seedings slightly (which is totally legitimate), is definitely equivalent to that.

Retract the claws ooo na na whats ya name. They did it to suit their prized asset, would this not be the same if nadal was given a slightly easier ride?

Red wrote:

3/ I think considering Nadal is a record holding champion at Roland Garros, and he is defending champion, I don't think it would be out of place if they put him above Ferrer at number 4 in the seedings.

That's clearly unfair! Why pick on Ferrer alone. He is pretty good on clay. If your going to do that it makes no sense whatsoever to rank Murray above Nadal at RG (Ha ha!) or for that matter Federer (How many times has Nadal proved he can beat him there) or Djokovic (who in his whole career has reached one RG final where he was beaten by Nadal).

socal1976 wrote:so if Bjorn Bjorg decides to show up for wimbeldon he gets a #2 seeding at worst at like age 54?

clearly not! The limit is 7 slams for a reason. You can't just have any riff raff turning up and demanding top seeding...

djlovesyou wrote:

If you're buying tickets for a sporting event and then getting upset because you didn't get the exact result that you wanted means that you're not really a fan of the sport.

Well no. I do understand that matches have to be won or lost fair and square. But tennis is not like a sport such as golf where you compete aganst the whole field. Draws have an impact and you can only win or loose against the players you are drawn against. Seeding was introduced in order to make this a little fairer and to ensure that the best players meet later on. This is of benefit both to the players who are the best and to the audience who want to see the best match ups. If you approve of seeding for these purposes then it's clear that in the case of Nadal the seeding formula as it is isn't doing the job it's meant to.

LuvSports! wrote:

Red wrote:

LuvSports! wrote:same as the tour down under bent their rules in allowing, at the time, 7 times tdf winner lance armstrong back before he was supposed to race in 2009...

Yes because the French Open changing the seedings slightly (which is totally legitimate), is definitely equivalent to that.

Retract the claws ooo na na whats ya name. They did it to suit their prized asset, would this not be the same if nadal was given a slightly easier ride?

laugh out loud France's prize asset is definitely not Nadal.
Plus, this would be totally within the rules (not sure if this was the case with the Lance thing).

Nor is lance australia's, but with him there it generated more media coverage, exposure etc.

Quoting the entire protected ranking and Nadal, being out more than six months, is eligible, provided he has or is willing to make a petition.

A. A player may petition the Executive Chairman & President for an Entry Protection when he is physically injured and does not compete in any tennis event for a minimum period of six months. The written petition must be received within six months of his last tournament.

The Entry Protection shall be a position in the Emirates ATP Rankings, as determined by the player's average Emirates ATP Rankings position during the first three months of his injury. The Entry Protection shall be for entry into the main draw or qualifying competition or for special exempt consideration. The Entry Protection shall not be used for seeding purposes, Lucky Loser consideration or for entry into the Barclays ATP World Tour Finals.

The Entry Protection shall be in effect for either the first nine tournaments that the player competes in using the Entry Protection (excluding wild cards and entries as a Direct Acceptance with his current position in the Emirates ATP Rankings) or for the period up to nine months beginning with the first tennis event that the player competes in, whichever occurs first.

ATP has protected rankings - http://www.atpworldtour.com/Rankings/Rankings-FAQ.aspx#protected

Did Nadal apply for protected ranking?

He was ranked #2 on 25 Jun 2012 @W.

His published rankings were (first three months of injury were)

24.09.2012 4
17.09.2012 4
10.09.2012 4
27.08.2012 3
20.08.2012 3
13.08.2012 3
06.08.2012 3
30.07.2012 3
23.07.2012 3
16.07.2012 3
09.07.2012 3
02.07.2012 2
25.06.2012 2

so the Average is 2 x 2 + 8 x 3 + 3 x 4 = 40 / 13 = 3.0769 ~ 3. (PS: Source - http://www.atpworldtour.com/Tennis/Players/Top-Players/Rafael-Nadal.aspx?t=rh)

So RG could have Djokovic, Federer, Nadal, Murray, Ferrer, if FFT chose not to follow ATP rules.

The rule is not clear what happens to rankings of other players, but it clearly states that The Entry Protection shall not be used for seeding purposes.

Why would Nadal apply for a protective ranking? At 5 he is able to enter any tournament and it has no impact on seeding.

Born Slippy wrote:Why would Nadal apply for a protective ranking? At 5 he is able to enter any tournament and it has no impact on seeding.

Red wrote:3/ I think considering Nadal is a record holding champion at Roland Garros, and he is defending champion, I don't think it would be out of place if they put him above Ferrer at number 4 in the seedings.

Because of the above statement and similar ones, perhaps his fans do not want him to play high ranked players (aka Top 4) prior to a designated SF. The assumption is that #3 gets a player to head a slam group, while #5 does not.

There are quite a few tourneys between now and RG, and like DelPo making his way back, Nadal, can too. IMVHO, I would suggest sticking to ATP rankings for RG seedings.

I do understand why W does it differently, because the Grass season is much shorter than Clay or HC.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Henman Bill wrote:I am, as always, in favour of no points ever dropping off, but your points are divided in half on December 31st.
This year's points would count at 100%.
Last year's at 50%.
The previous years at 25% (having been divided twice).
The previous year at 12.5%.
etc

Djokovic could be out injured for 4 years and still be in the top 100

Fed might have reitred in 2014 but he might be in the rankings in 2050 [Top 100].

No, I would just have a rule that you have to play at least 1 tournament per year and if not you are removed from the rankings.

In the current system, a player's ranking more closely relates to their actual ability to win a match, especially for up and coming youngsters. In a 2-year ranking system, or the one I proposed, you would be more likely to get an up and comer with a lower ranking actually being favourite to win against a higher ranked player on the way down. Question is if you see an issue with that.

A 2-year ranking system would be less about form and more about acknowledging previous achievement. But I don't see an issue with that. The fact that Federer is a 7-time Wimbledon champion counts for something when he steps on court, but the rankings do not acknowledge that.

The rankings say that what happened 11 months ago counts the same as last week, and what happened 13 months ago counts for nothing, while is silly to me. My system would address that and also fix the hassle of having to factor in points dropping off. Although it would put Cogen out of a job.

@HB... past performance is not a guarantee of future performances.

The up-coming vs down-going players has been part of Tennis history. Do you think it requires a change now?

Nadal lost to Dodig or Rosol, or Federer lost to Berdych, should there be a weighted average system applied to each win/loss?

The current system is a simple, well understood, and clean system. The assumption (and statistically supported) is that a player at rank #x continues to perform at that level for at least 12 months, with some variations, if healthy.

You may want to take two players, say Federer and Nadal, or Djokovic and Murray, and work out their ranking using your system, and it would roughly be the same as what they have now. In your system, you are creating a time-series of performance, but many will argue about what is the correct weight to be assigned to say each year.

Henman Bill wrote:

A 2-year ranking system would be less about form and more about acknowledging previous achievement. But I don't see an issue with that. The fact that Federer is a 7-time Wimbledon champion counts for something when he steps on court, but the rankings do not acknowledge that.

A one year ranking system also acknowledges previous achievement over form (but just restricts previous achievement to the last 12 months). Hence the bizarre scenario that could occur whereby Nadal could enter RG as the 5th seed with 7 titles to his name PLUS the majority of the three most recent clay masters titles PLUS being number one in the race PLUS being huge odds on favourite to win the title. This because he was unable to play for 8 of the 12 months that is being used to assess his form. Not because he had bad results during this period.

If you agree with using seeding in tournaments and the reasons for using seeding in tournaments. Then it follows that in this case the formula for determining seeding clearly doesn't work.

HE, if the FO decide to use existing formula for calculating seeding, Rafa will be seeded higher than 5. If they decide not to use it...well, I guess that's their prerogative.

Kuerten, ranked #66, won RG. Why is Nadal's #5 considered a deterrent to his potential next RG title?

He should win it on his tennis, not his ranking, which may provide some perceived protection from being challenged earlier?

I still don't get what existing formula you are referring to. I would be firmly against the same formula being applied as for Wimbledon as there are too many clay events. If a similar formula was to be brought in then i would have it as:

100% RG result plus two best clay Masters results in the past 12 months
75% best clay court result in the year before

In a perfect world all GS seedings would be according to how well each player does on that particular surface, but seeing as Grass doesnt even have a 500, while clay has a 3-6 deficit in terms of Masters, this would lead to imbalances between the rankings and the seedings to the point of embarassment (Murray would be seeded, what 6-10 in Paris, but 2 two weeks later at SW19). The status quo should remain.
12- month ranking
ranking=seeding

Born Slippy wrote:I still don't get what existing formula you are referring to.

It's the existing formula referred to in those links. I don't know the exact calculations, though I did read it many years ago.
The formula is there for every GS to use/not use as they choose. Wimby choose to apply it, the others haven't yet, but could if they want to.
That's my understanding.

http://www.itftennis.com/media/136151/136151.pdf
2013 OFFICIAL GRAND SLAM RULE BOOK

Rule 2 F ii)
Selection of Seeds
The selection of seeds will be at the discretion of each
individual Grand Slam Tournament Committee, however, the
computer ranking list dated approximately seven (7) days prior
to the tournament shall be a primary, but not sole, basis for such
selection.

laverfan wrote:Kuerten, ranked #66, won RG. Why is Nadal's #5 considered a deterrent to his potential next RG title?

He should win it on his tennis, not his ranking, which may provide some perceived protection from being challenged earlier?

What makes you think this issue is just about protecting Nadal? Despite his likely low seeding at RG he is already the betting favorite so maybe he has less to lose. Holders of quarter final tickets may well be happy but the rest of the tennis audience will be losers. Not just the very small number with tickets for semi's and finals but the wider viewing public who may only for a variety of reasons watch finals. Also the other players. For example Djokovic who I think has earned the right to avoid Nadal in the quarters.

What makes people think this is about protecting Nadal is that you also claimed that anyone with 7 slams or more should be guaranteed either a 1 or 2 seeding despite their current form. How convenient HE that Djokovic has 6 slams. According to your ranking system murray could win the next 4 slams in a row and do no better than a number 3 ranking if Nadal and Federer show up. Maybe that is why everybody sees your suggestions as just favortism for your favorite player.

HE stop moaning about poor Rafa this poor Rafa that and oh Ferrer below Murray is disgraceful

legendkillarV2 wrote:

Suck it up and man up you wuss!

Why would I want to do that even if I could? I am much stronger than that... cough

Anyway quoting myself it's clear that my concern lies with the wider public and the other disadvantaged players but most of all poor Djokovic who deserves to benefit from his good play. Nadal is quite capable of looking after himself.

hawkeye wrote:

What makes you think this issue is just about protecting Nadal? Despite his likely low seeding at RG he is already the betting favorite so maybe he has less to lose. Holders of quarter final tickets may well be happy but the rest of the tennis audience will be losers. Not just the very small number with tickets for semi's and finals but the wider viewing public who may only for a variety of reasons watch finals. Also the other players. For example Djokovic who I think has earned the right to avoid Nadal in the quarters.

socal. I think you have misunderstood my proposed seeding system. To claim top seeding a player would have to have won the title at that particular event 7 times or more (not just any old hodge podge of slam titles). I think you would agree that to allow this to be used too easily could cause chaos. As it is only Federer, Nadal and Sampras could (If the ATP decide to introduce it) play this trump card. If Djokovic wins the AO 3 more times he will of course be welcome to enter this select club. As will Murray if he wins the US Open another 6 times...

LK, I don't think it's about protecting anybody, but I don't think Nadal at fourth seed (rather than fifth) would be a shocking move be FO.

HE, why change the entire ranking system when RG has the discretion to put him at 4,3,2, or 1 if they like. The rankings reflect who the best is pretty accurately and have done so for 40 years. And tennis tournament seeding are not popularity contests nor should they be about favoring career achievement even on that given surface.

Oh! OK socal that's fair enough with me. If RG seed Nadal at 1 I don't mind what formula they use.

The kicker being that the parisians being very happy with themselves and the way that they normally do things, and because they won't want to be seen as kowtowing to pressure or popular opinion will most likely not use the discretion they have. I would be willing to bet money that they will use this opportunity to give tennis fans around the world the bird, not to generalize but that is kind of the way they operate.

On present rankings if Nadal is seeded 4 or higher then his potential q/f opponents would be Ferrer, Berdych. Tsonga or Del Potro

If seeded 5 then it would be Djokovic, Federer, Murray or Ferrer.

Given that we keep on being told that Federer is fading, and Murray's clay court game is not the best then as long as Nadal avoided Djokovic being number 5 might be beneficial as he would be sure to miss the big hitting guys.

Henman Bill wrote:I am, as always, in favour of no points ever dropping off, but your points are divided in half on December 31st.
This year's points would count at 100%.
Last year's at 50%.
The previous years at 25% (having been divided twice).
The previous year at 12.5%.
etc

The system is pretty good in my opinion I don't see the benefit of the system you devise. I don't know why your results almost 3 years ago should have any even a diminished impact on who is the number 1. This basically will create years where we have two different players that can lay claim to the number 1. For example, you would have the player who won the most points in a 52 week period, and conceivably another player who has the most points in this weighted 3 year average and sometimes it would be the same guy and sometimes it will be different. I do think for injury they should do more to protect a ranking allowing for a players last 18 tournaments played in possibly as opposed to just the last 18 over 52 weeks, that would be the only exception I would have to a straight yearly ranking system.