Murray on the Ranking System

Murray has added his voice to criticisms of the ATP ranking, saying that it should copy golf's two-year system and pointing out that Nadal's ranking at #5 is proof of the deficiencies of the current system. He considers that it should be possible to be injured for 5 months as a top player and retain your ranking.

I agree that the result of Nadal being seeded #5 at Wimbledon may be a very nasty QF surprise for him or, perhaps more likely, for one of the current #1-#3 (which may be Murray's real beef), but it seems to me that in a game like tennis which is based so much on fitness, in which players have shorter careers, and which operates knock-out contests is suited to a shorter ranking base than golf in which careers are usually longer, form is far more fleeting, and the stroke-play competition format enables anyone to emerge from the pack and win one week without having to 'beat' their opponents 1-on-1 (let alone do that at all consistently) and fall back into the pack the next week. It is far more necessary to 'smooth' results over a period in order to identify the best golfer than with tennis - the best tennis player starts winning or going deep week-in, week-out and he soon shoots up the rankings deservedly so. Also, the details of golf rankings are far less important - their cut-offs that matter are top 40, 50, 60 and so on for entry into the more exclusive contests, there's no real significance between being #1 and #10 - and if there was we'd quickly notice the 'absurdity' of seedings which would put X above Y despite the fact that X had done nothing for 12-18 months.

Anyway - this utterance puts one of the board members in a nasty dilemma - Murray's utterances are scanned and parsed with great care to identify the downside - what will said board member say about this interjection, which supports the position of the messiah?

Blimey, will it be like that old Star Trek episode where the computer self-destructs over 2 valid but competing arguments?

Anyway, I wouldn't like to see a 2 year rankings, for reasons stated previously when the subject came up before.

JuliusHMarx wrote:Blimey, will it be like that old Star Trek episode where the computer self-destructs over 2 valid but competing arguments?

Anyway, I wouldn't like to see a 2 year rankings, for reasons stated previously when the subject came up before.

Episode? Are you kidding? That was Kirk's go-to method to defeat any 1000-year old computerised Global Tyranny system. It's well known that any highly sophisticated futuristic computerised system explodes when it gets contradictory information.

Or is that socal? I forget.

As for the argument, why stop at 2? Let's go for 50 years. Federer now owns the record for most weeks at #2 and will surely get the top spot soon as Laver is sure to drop points in the next 8-10 years.

Players at the top crying out for change in the ranking system that would benefit them solely (once they get there obviously) rather than the vast majority of the tour? Well, I never.

What about when Woods was ranked number 1 when he hadn't won or even played in a tournament for goodness knows how long. How ridiculous was that.

If Nadal can stay fit for the rest of 2013- the current ranking system will actually suit him (at that time).

Think about it, at the end of 2013 if he plays the rest of the year there will be no big gap in terms of points, but if it's a two year system then the time taken out in 2012 will still be a 'hole' in his points.

Anywaythe system in tennis I prefer to the one in golf, although I can see why people would argue differently.

From Today's Times by Neil Harman: 'Nadal asked those participating in the 2011 Barclays ATP World Tour Finals at the O2 to sign a document calling on men’s tennis to consider a two-year ranking system to protect the status of anyone forced to take significant breaks.

Murray was in the “pro” camp and said yesterday: “In tennis, if you miss four or five months, it is almost impossible to maintain your ranking. In golf, it is a two-year ranking system.”'

This must be really hard for hawkeye Please don't spontaneously combust HE!

Seriously - the top players obviously would like to protect their rankings, but hopefully the ATP will also consider petitions from the up and coming rank and file.

In other news, Turkeys vote for Christmas to be cancelled.


Seriously, good on Federer for standing up to the top players against this.

I love the analogy BB

Agree, good on TMF. This would benefit a very few in the short term and have a detrimental effect on the many for generations to come.

I did not expect Murray to be so protectionist about a f***ing ranking.

These boys cannot make their racquets talk, so they want a bubble of protective ranking. What PoS!

I just lost 50% respect for Murray. Absolute travesty.

Justifying a 4-5 month break in a 11-month calendar (in Nadal's case it was 7 months), do you want Super Fries with your next vacation, Mr Dandy Murray?

Someone has just f***ing hacked Laverfan's account. I am worried.

As usual, I'll argue that we should have 100% of this year and 50% of the year before. This could bring together opposing sides on this argument.

Henman Bill wrote:Someone has just f***ing hacked Laverfan's account. I am worried.

I'd better not try what she's been taking, I'll combust.

LF, wash your mouth out!

Red, if you're there, please give LF a suitable warning.

time please wrote:From Today's Times by Neil Harman: 'Nadal asked those participating in the 2011 Barclays ATP World Tour Finals at the O2 to sign a document calling on men’s tennis to consider a two-year ranking system to protect the status of anyone forced to take significant breaks.

Murray was in the “pro” camp and said yesterday: “In tennis, if you miss four or five months, it is almost impossible to maintain your ranking. In golf, it is a two-year ranking system.”'

If all he said was the bit I've bolded, it doesn't seem like a strong call for change. Did he say anything else on the subject?

Disagree with Murray for the reasons stated in barrystars article.

The downside is clear, with Rafa ranked at 5 and below Simone he is clearly better than. But as pointed out above, by the end of the year this hole will have disappeared whereas if it were a 2 year ranking the hole would be around for longer.

What about up and coming players? Jerzy for example has shot up the rankings, deservedly. That progress would not be reflected as accurately in a 2 year system, and that isn't right in my opinion.

I'm a big Muzza fan but couldn't disagree with him more on this subject... Although I can't wait for Hawkeye's "Murray is talking complete sense" post, if she can bring herself to write it.

Also, think where someone like Tommy Haas would be languishing on a two year ranking.

I'm sure the top guys wouldn't be happy to encounter a player of that quality, in that form really early in a tournament.

I think it's more important that rankings reflect the "here and now" than more legacy.

Laverfan

Use of the word 'bubble' in a metaphorical sense is just downright unacceptable, and contravenes all the rules of the forum simultaneously.

Further actions will warrant me having to complain to Emancipator who will take stern action.

YvonneT wrote:

time please wrote:From Today's Times by Neil Harman: 'Nadal asked those participating in the 2011 Barclays ATP World Tour Finals at the O2 to sign a document calling on men’s tennis to consider a two-year ranking system to protect the status of anyone forced to take significant breaks.

Murray was in the “pro” camp and said yesterday: “In tennis, if you miss four or five months, it is almost impossible to maintain your ranking. In golf, it is a two-year ranking system.”'

If all he said was the bit I've bolded, it doesn't seem like a strong call for change. Did he say anything else on the subject?

Agree, the bit above just suggests that he was in the camp of players who signed/indicated willingness to sign. They are talking (Castle and Fleming) on BBC 2 atm, and Murray apparently has said that he thinks the No 5 ranking makes it very hard for Nadal at Wimbledon - I tend to think it just makes it a bit harder for Murray/Djokovic/Federer, whoever hoped to avoid him until at least the semis

They are inviting comments on Twitter #BBC_tennis if anyone wants to respond!

I have to say I am surprised. I find it highly frustrating that players are more concerned with the impact on ranking an injury has much rather than the impact on their health.

Look at Haas. Emphasis's the right attitude for long term injury. Knuckle down and get on with it and enjoy playing the sport. I am sure out there Soderling would swap a high ranking if meant playing again.

If players are good enough they can play themselves back into their ranking. So sick of this 2 year crap!

Henman Bill wrote:Someone has just f***ing hacked Laverfan's account. I am worried.

It was me



emancipator

legendkillarV2 wrote:I have to say I am surprised. I find it highly frustrating that players are more concerned with the impact on ranking an injury has much rather than the impact on their health.

Look at Haas. Emphasis's the right attitude for long term injury. Knuckle down and get on with it and enjoy playing the sport. I am sure out there Soderling would swap a high ranking if meant playing again.

If players are good enough they can play themselves back into their ranking. So sick of this 2 year crap!

Couldn't agree more. Also sick of the comparison with Golf. There is a difference between ranking and seeding. The ranking in Golf, while not entirely pointless, has almost no meaning within tournaments. Golfers play a course. Not an individual. The rankings are used in part to determine the playing field and that's it.

Tennis has rankings to help determine seeding to determine when the best players can meet. Nadal had over half a season out!!!! To somehow alter the whole fabric of the system because of one man is very annoying. If you are not fit enough to turn up u get zero points. It's really simple.

The tour doesn't stop because one person doesn't show up. Were Nadal and Murray complaining when they were moving up through the rankings? No they were not.

Johnyjeep wrote:The ranking in Golf, while not entirely pointless, has almost no meaning within tournaments. Golfers play a course. Not an individual.

That is a brilliant point - you should definitely tweet that!

Also..if Ferrer is seeded above Nadal using the time honoured way then so be it. Are his points accrued when Nadal was off worth less in someway?

Should we add a weighted to seeding points now depending on who is in the draw.

time please wrote:

Johnyjeep wrote:The ranking in Golf, while not entirely pointless, has almost no meaning within tournaments. Golfers play a course. Not an individual.

That is a brilliant point - you should definitely tweet that!

Lol thanks TP. It's all yours. Tweet away my friend.

Johnyjeep wrote:Also..if Ferrer is seeded above Nadal using the time honoured way then so be it. Are his points accrued when Nadal was off worth less in someway?

Should we add a weighted to seeding points now depending on who is in the draw.

I think we need era weighting built into the ranking system.

Apparently some think we should have had at least three #1's in the last few years, and rankings capped at #5 in 2002.

Mmm... What's a player ranked above 5 supposed to think about Nadal's seeding being a lowly 5 at Wimbledon? It's a bit of a conundrum. Nobody would want to give up their own seeding and yet who would want the prospect of facing Nadal in the quarters.

Not Djokovic. IMO Nadal's game is better suited to grass play than Djokovic and Djokovic must still have the RG semi on his mind.

Not Murray. With his poor H2H with Nadal particularly at Wimbledon. Not to mention his lack of match play and his recent back problems.

Not Federer. IMO he would play Nadal the closest but I still can't see him getting past the finish line.

Not Ferrer. He would be happy if he never had to see Rafa at the other side of the net again...

Who would bet against Nadal in any of these matches?

The Wimbledon seeding committee, broadcasters, final ticket holders and players all perhaps have a bit of a headache caused by Nadal at the moment.

hawkeye wrote:
The Wimbledon seeding committee, broadcasters, final ticket holders and players all perhaps have a bit of a headache caused by Nadal at the moment.

Not really.
They'll just stick the usual formula- and we may have a big match in the quarters.

hawkeye wrote:Mmm... What's a player ranked above 5 supposed to think about Nadal's seeding being a lowly 5 at Wimbledon? It's a bit of a conundrum. Nobody would want to give up their own seeding and yet who would want the prospect of facing Nadal in the quarters.

Not Djokovic. IMO Nadal's game is better suited to grass play than Djokovic and Djokovic must still have the RG semi on his mind.

Not Murray. With his poor H2H with Nadal particularly at Wimbledon. Not to mention his lack of match play and his recent back problems.

Not Federer. IMO he would play Nadal the closest but I still can't see him getting past the finish line.

Not Ferrer. He would be happy if he never had to see Rafa at the other side of the net again...

Who would bet against Nadal in any of these matches?

The Wimbledon seeding committee, broadcasters, final ticket holders and players all perhaps have a bit of a headache caused by Nadal at the moment.

So............ you agree with Andy?

:waitswithbatedbreath:

Johnyjeep wrote:

time please wrote:

Johnyjeep wrote:The ranking in Golf, while not entirely pointless, has almost no meaning within tournaments. Golfers play a course. Not an individual.

That is a brilliant point - you should definitely tweet that!

Lol thanks TP. It's all yours. Tweet away my friend.

Haven't got a twitter account - over to anyone else?

btw HE, you HAVE to check this out:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OIj9QQF5DU8

bogbrush wrote:

Johnyjeep wrote:Also..if Ferrer is seeded above Nadal using the time honoured way then so be it. Are his points accrued when Nadal was off worth less in someway?

Should we add a weighted to seeding points now depending on who is in the draw.

I think we need era weighting built into the ranking system.

Apparently some think we should have had at least three #1's in the last few years, and rankings capped at #5 in 2002.

Hahaha

bogbrush wrote:

hawkeye wrote:Mmm... What's a player ranked above 5 supposed to think about Nadal's seeding being a lowly 5 at Wimbledon? It's a bit of a conundrum. Nobody would want to give up their own seeding and yet who would want the prospect of facing Nadal in the quarters.

Not Djokovic. IMO Nadal's game is better suited to grass play than Djokovic and Djokovic must still have the RG semi on his mind.

Not Murray. With his poor H2H with Nadal particularly at Wimbledon. Not to mention his lack of match play and his recent back problems.

Not Federer. IMO he would play Nadal the closest but I still can't see him getting past the finish line.

Not Ferrer. He would be happy if he never had to see Rafa at the other side of the net again...

Who would bet against Nadal in any of these matches?

The Wimbledon seeding committee, broadcasters, final ticket holders and players all perhaps have a bit of a headache caused by Nadal at the moment.

So............ you agree with Andy?

:waitswithbatedbreath:

I was waiting for HE to spot the opening Murray is now a bit concerned that he won't reach the semis!

bogbrush. It's difficult to figure out what Murray is saying. But I'm sure he must realize that meeting Nadal in the quarters at Wimbledon would in all probability mean a big loss of points, an end to his Wimbledon prospects and a drop from the number two position.

hawkeye wrote:bogbrush. It's difficult to figure out what Murray is saying. But I'm sure he must realize that meeting Nadal in the quarters at Wimbledon would in all probability mean a big loss of points, an end to his Wimbledon prospects and a drop from the number two position.

??
Murray is favourite for that match.

hawkeye wrote:The Wimbledon seeding committee, broadcasters, final ticket holders and players all perhaps have a bit of a headache caused by Nadal at the moment.

This comment would make more sense if the broadcasters, players and final ticket holders had any say over the seedings.

hawkeye wrote:Mmm... What's a player ranked above 5 supposed to think about Nadal's seeding being a lowly 5 at Wimbledon? It's a bit of a conundrum. Nobody would want to give up their own seeding and yet who would want the prospect of facing Nadal in the quarters.

Not Djokovic. IMO Nadal's game is better suited to grass play than Djokovic and Djokovic must still have the RG semi on his mind.

Not Murray. With his poor H2H with Nadal particularly at Wimbledon. Not to mention his lack of match play and his recent back problems.

Not Federer. IMO he would play Nadal the closest but I still can't see him getting past the finish line.

Not Ferrer. He would be happy if he never had to see Rafa at the other side of the net again...

Who would bet against Nadal in any of these matches?

The Wimbledon seeding committee, broadcasters, final ticket holders and players all perhaps have a bit of a headache caused by Nadal at the moment.

Are you kidding? At least 3 out of those 4 stakeholders will not be giving it a second thought.

Wimbledon? Of all things these will now that no one person is bigger than the tournament.

Broadcasters? Beeb will cover most matches featuring Nadal regardless of seeding.

Final ticket holders? This one is the most laughable. Are you suggesting pple will think twice about buying final tickets if Nadal is seeded 5??!!!

HM Murdoch. They wouldn't have a headache if they had a say!

hawkeye wrote:bogbrush. It's difficult to figure out what Murray is saying. But I'm sure he must realize that meeting Nadal in the quarters at Wimbledon would in all probability mean a big loss of points, an end to his Wimbledon prospects and a drop from the number two position.

I woz right then! Only disappointed that it took you until late this afternoon to find the obvious opening HE

Murray's Wimbledon draw:

R1: Isner
R2: Lopez
R3: Dimitrov
R4: Raonic
QF: Nadal
SF: Federer
F: Djokovic

I'm not for a two year ranking anyway, and players with serious injury normally get a PR for a year(?) anyway. I wouldn't be surprised to see it in the WTA though.

Red wrote:

hawkeye wrote:bogbrush. It's difficult to figure out what Murray is saying. But I'm sure he must realize that meeting Nadal in the quarters at Wimbledon would in all probability mean a big loss of points, an end to his Wimbledon prospects and a drop from the number two position.

??
Murray is favourite for that match.

Duh! Murray is the one who in all probability will lose so much...

hawkeye wrote:

Red wrote:

hawkeye wrote:bogbrush. It's difficult to figure out what Murray is saying. But I'm sure he must realize that meeting Nadal in the quarters at Wimbledon would in all probability mean a big loss of points, an end to his Wimbledon prospects and a drop from the number two position.

??
Murray is favourite for that match.

Duh! Murray is the one who in all probability will lose so much...

He's favourite against Nadal. Of course he is, pre-match.

Red. I'm not sure what your reasoning is for making Murray the favorite over Rafa at Wimbledon but I would be interested to hear it?

Johnyjeep wrote:Also..if Ferrer is seeded above Nadal using the time honoured way then so be it. Are his points accrued when Nadal was off worth less in someway?

Should we add a weighted to seeding points now depending on who is in the draw.

You can call it the

* affectaplyer

hawkeye wrote:Red. I'm not sure what your reasoning is for making Murray the favorite over Rafa at Wimbledon but I would be interested to hear it?

he is No 2 compared to Nadal No 5

(lights fuse and )

hawkeye wrote:Red. I'm not sure what your reasoning is for making Murray the favorite over Rafa at Wimbledon but I would be interested to hear it?

Revenge is the main reason:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OIj9QQF5DU8

Red wrote:

hawkeye wrote:

Red wrote:

hawkeye wrote:bogbrush. It's difficult to figure out what Murray is saying. But I'm sure he must realize that meeting Nadal in the quarters at Wimbledon would in all probability mean a big loss of points, an end to his Wimbledon prospects and a drop from the number two position.

??
Murray is favourite for that match.

Duh! Murray is the one who in all probability will lose so much...

He's favourite against Nadal. Of course he is, pre-match.

C'mon now Red - I know the anti -jinxing downplaying of Nadal's chances has worked out very well so far, but you're taking it to extremes. Rafa with 5 finals, and two wins has considerably better grass court pedigree than Murray with 1 final, and an Olympic win. The latter was admittedly great, but the field wasn't as large as for a grand slam and the tournament was bo3 until the final.

I agree Nadal has a much better grass court pedigree so far.
But, Murray with home support may give him a boost.

If they do meet in the QF, I will queue from the day before the ensure I can see the match.
I will do my best to ensure that Nadal feels well supported, while Murray less so. Last time the Fed fans managed to do a great job in the O2, it's time for the Nadal fans to step it up at Wimbledon.

Firstly of course, I'll keep on shouting 'Cmon Tim' that could make Murray annoyed. 'Vamos Rafa' isn't really annoying enough, so it'll have to be 'Vamos Rafael Nadal Parera', that could get under his skin.
Also if the crowd are getting too much in Murray's favour, and I can't down them out, I will get a Scottish flag with a picture of Alex Salmoned so the English section of the crowd remember Murray's WC quote and go back to supporting Rafito.

Red wrote:If they do meet in the QF, I will queue from the day before the ensure I can see the match.
I will do my best to ensure that Nadal feels well supported, while Murray less so. Last time the Fed fans managed to do a great job in the O2, it's time for the Nadal fans to step it up at Wimbledon.

Firstly of course, I'll keep on shouting 'Cmon Tim' that could make Murray annoyed. 'Vamos Rafa' isn't really annoying enough, so it'll have to be 'Vamos Rafael Nadal Parera', that could get under his skin.
Also if the crowd are getting too much in Murray's favour, and I can't down them out, I will get a Scottish flag with a picture of Alex Salmoned so the English section of the crowd remember Murray's WC quote and go back to supporting Rafito.

Or you will find yourself being beaten up because they will think you are a Pro-Independence Scot?