The Ranking System Plays A Cruel Trick

After the US Open Djokovic is still at number one with 10,980 points but Nadal is only 120 points behind at 10,860 points. However Nadal's 150 points for finishing runner up in Vin Del Mar in February have not been included. Apparently he has been penalized for not playing a 500 event after the US Open last year! Ha ha! So along with all the zero's he has for not being able to play for 8 months when he started to play he wasn't able to keep the points he earned as a punishment. Looking at the rules Nadal may have got off lightly. After all he did also miss Canada and Cincinnati last year so I'm surprised the ATP didn't prevent him playing in Monte Carlo and Rome earlier this year too. That would have been funny...

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Rankings/Rankings-FAQ.aspx

The really funny thing is that Nadal has earned enough points this year to be number one. If he was able to count his 150 points he would overtake Djokovic. The Ranking system has played a cruel trick!

That sounds like "born to be number 2" to me!

It's just not fair.

It's a conspiracy I tells ya.

I wouldn't worry hawkeye as Rafa has no points to defend between now and the end of the year so it is just a matter of when and not if Rafa becomes No.1.

I've written to my MP to complain about this. If I get no response I'll take it higher. This should be top priority.

I've already gone higher JHM. Straight to the European Court of Human Rights (I was assured that because both Novak and Rafa are EU citizens, they will be happy to hear the case .......)

Doncha just hate it when a body like the ATP has a set of agreed, well-defined rules + regs, and then not only imposes them - but actually expects them to be respected too .....? .......

I went higher than the European Court of Human Rights, I spoke directly to God (Paul McGrath) to complain.

He said that he can't do anything, that rules are rules. I want to take it higher but I'm not sure where to go.

Ofrank maybe .....??

(otherwise known as The Rankings Ombudsman)

I don't think rafa cares if he is number 1 or not so why should you?

Danny_1982 wrote:I went higher than the European Court of Human Rights, I spoke directly to God (Paul McGrath) to complain.

He said that he can't do anything, that rules are rules. I want to take it higher but I'm not sure where to go.

Emancipator?

Danny_1982 wrote:I went higher than the European Court of Human Rights, I spoke directly to God (Paul McGrath) to complain.

He said that he can't do anything, that rules are rules. I want to take it higher but I'm not sure where to go.

The Pope is the only option left. He shall stop this madness.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Danny_1982 wrote:I went higher than the European Court of Human Rights, I spoke directly to God (Paul McGrath) to complain.

He said that he can't do anything, that rules are rules. I want to take it higher but I'm not sure where to go.

Emancipator?

Karlovic.

Well whilst you are at it tell them how dare they take Andy's Olympic points away I mean those points should stand forever for back-to-back straight sets wins over the World No.1 and World No.2.  

CaledonianCraig wrote:Well whilst you are at it tell them how dare they take Andy's Olympic points away I mean those points should stand forever for back-to-back straight sets wins over the World No.1 and World No.2.  

But Rafa wasn't there so like all tournaments that he doesn't take place in, or gets knocked out by a freak early round result, it should be worth no points to anyone who took part. That's in the ATP rules too

ChequeredJersey wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:Well whilst you are at it tell them how dare they take Andy's Olympic points away I mean those points should stand forever for back-to-back straight sets wins over the World No.1 and World No.2.  

But Rafa wasn't there so like all tournaments that he doesn't take place in, or gets knocked out by a freak early round result, it should be worth no points to anyone who took part. That's in the ATP rules too

Oh damn. Forgot that old loophole.  

Don't forget that Rafa gave everyone a 15 month head start, so this really is a cruel trick.

Ha ha! You lot are funny. Rules are rules but before I posted this I was imagining the hissy fits if the rankings had played this cruel trick on Murray to deny him his only chance of holding the number one position. Of course it makes little difference to Nadal.

Rules may be rules but the ATP wasn't handed down ranking points from on high on a stone tablet. Some people act as if that was the case.

hawkeye wrote:Ha ha! You lot are funny. Rules are rules but before I posted this I was imagining the hissy fits if the rankings had played this cruel trick on Murray to deny him his only chance of holding the number one position.

That part I can believe - you do seem to do a great deal of imagining about Murray.

hawkeye wrote:Ha ha! You lot are funny. Rules are rules but before I posted this I was imagining the hissy fits if the rankings had played this cruel trick on Murray to deny him his only chance of holding the number one position. Of course it makes little difference to Nadal.

Rules may be rules but the ATP wasn't handed down ranking points from on high on a stone tablet. Some people act as if that was the case.

As a Murray fan, if he ever reaches number 1 I'd like him to do it within the agreed ranking formula.

If he's ever a few points away I'll consider him just that, a few points away. I won't go scurrying around looking for conspiracies.

hawkeye wrote:Ha ha! You lot are funny.

...........................................................................................................

.....................................................................................................

It's good that you find us amusing hawkeye. But be careful not to do yourself a disservice.

Never underestimate the vital role you so often play in our entertainment ........

ChequeredJersey wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:Well whilst you are at it tell them how dare they take Andy's Olympic points away I mean those points should stand forever for back-to-back straight sets wins over the World No.1 and World No.2.  

But Rafa wasn't there so like all tournaments that he doesn't take place in, or gets knocked out by a freak early round result, it should be worth no points to anyone who took part. That's in the ATP rules too

I'm personally confused why any single match that doesn't involve Rafa results in points won for the victor. Matches should be the same as tournaments, if Rafa isn't in them they don't count.

^ The rule is a bit strange to say the least. As it is it will make little difference to Nadal but if it was applied to deny a player their one chance at being number one it would be a bit cruel dont you think? Of course I thought of Murray as he has been in the number two slot before but never held the number one spot but it would be just as cruel if it denied another player a chance.

IMO it is a strange rule but it may only be noticeable in circumstances when it makes a big difference. I suppose in this case everyone is happy about its application...

hawkeye wrote:
IMO it is a strange rule but it may only be noticeable in circumstances when it makes a big difference. I suppose in this case everyone is happy about its application...

Not at all hawkeye. Read my initial response and I'll say it again - Rafa will be No.1 in the coming weeks in any case so why get your knickers in a knot? And as has been pointed out rules state he has surpassed his allowed scoring points from 250/500 tournies. Swallow the facts and move on and look forward to Rafa being No.1 before the leaves start falling from the trees - that is what I'd do instead of lining yourself up to be ridiculed.

If nothing else this goes to show that Djokovic's #1 is not really that meaningful at the moment. I thought it was a reasonable interesting article.

Federer regularly used to lose to Nadal at RG, but yet was #1. How dare he? He should be stripped of his records and they should be given to Nadal?

Where is H-n when you need her (or Lydian), when we need them?

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Danny_1982 wrote:I went higher than the European Court of Human Rights, I spoke directly to God (Paul McGrath) to complain.

He said that he can't do anything, that rules are rules. I want to take it higher but I'm not sure where to go.

Emancipator?

Emacipator gives a Poopie when the issues is related to Rafa,  

laverfan wrote:Federer regularly used to lose to Nadal at RG, but yet was #1. How dare he? He should be stripped of his records and they should be given to Nadal?

Where is H-n when you need her (or Lydian), when we need them?

  

  

laverfan wrote:Federer regularly used to lose to Nadal at RG, but yet was #1. How dare he? He should be stripped of his records and they should be given to Nadal?

Where is H-n when you need her (or Lydian), when we need them?

laverfan. I don't think you understand my article if you think this is a sensible comparison. Do you know what the cruel trick I was referring to was?

Nadal was not able to play because of injury for 7/8 months from Wimbledon 2012 until February 2013. Because he was unable to play he of course has no points from this period. And yet when he played his first tournament after returning from injury the ATP rules punished him for being injured by not allowing him to use the points that he had won. Does that not seem just a little bit cruel? It does to me. An added little twist to the cruelty is that without this punishment Nadal would have taken the number one ranking when he won the US Open because he has won more points than Djokovic.

Cruelty is cruelty and just because Nadal is Nadal and this cruelty will make little difference I thought it worth commenting on. I'm sure if this little twist had been applied to another player who had never held the number one position it would have been worth remarking on so why not Nadal?

Of course if the number one ranking was based on a players H2H's with the rest of the field then Nadal would have been a lock in for much of his career. But I assume you were just joking when you mentioned that? Also I think because it was me that wrote the article I'm confused that you haven't aimed your little joke at me? Credit where it's due  

Henman Bill wrote:If nothing else this goes to show that Djokovic's #1 is not really that meaningful at the moment. I thought it was a reasonable interesting article.

Thanks. I thought it was reasonably interesting too.

Cruelty. Noun.
1.Callous indifference to or pleasure in causing pain and suffering.
2.Behavior that causes pain or suffering to a person or animal.

So, no, it's not cruelty.

hawkeye wrote:Ha ha! You lot are funny. Rules are rules but before I posted this I was imagining the hissy fits if the rankings had played this cruel trick on Murray to deny him his only chance of holding the number one position. Of course it makes little difference to Nadal.

Says it all really. You knew what you were posting was rubbish. You knew it would wind people up (because it was rubbish). And then somehow you manage to bring Murray into the discussion as a justification for it (even though he was on no one’s radar until you did).

You only mentioned him after everyone quite rightly had told you that the Ranking System does not ‘Play’ anything, so therefore cannot be ‘Cruel’ rendering any ‘Tricks’ to be highly unlikely (if not impossible). As if the original post didn’t have the desired effect so I’ll throw Murray into the mix to stir up the hornets’ nest.

It is like you had imagined how the argument would go in your head beforehand, and then if not successful, I’ve got a back-up just in case.  A predetermined, calculated act if you will.

JHM has kindly posted a definition of the key noun within your thread title. How apt this particular word, which can have no possible application to a non-sentient process, so accurately describes your general modus operandi on this board.

Precisely the type of article which has (unfortunately) made my willingness to swing by this forum less and less.

I think that's a little harsh. I have no problem with this article and the use of the word "cruel" is really no more than artistic licence. It is, of course, completely understandable that no account of injury is taken into account when applying zero pointers but it is still possible to be sympathetic to the affected player - albeit in this case it will make little practical difference.

Of more relevance, of course, is to consider the position if Rafa had got his 2 year ranking system. If so, he would currently be nowhere near the number 1 spot and his ranking would have continued to be affected next year. Just shows what a terrible idea that would be.

Possibly Born Slippy. It wasn't until Murray was thrown in from way out leftfield that made me wonder what the true purpose of this article was. I'm not even a Murray fan (though he his growing on me - slowly) but saw no reason why he should be thrown into the mix. Hence the argument 'in the posters head' point.

Excellent point re the 2 year ranking system. Didn't think of that.

Johnyjeep wrote:Precisely the type of article which has (unfortunately) made my willingness to swing by this forum less and less.

Interesting. Because it's exactly the kind of playground behaviour exhibited in this thread which (unfortunately) has made my willingness to swing by this forum dissipate almost completely. And that includes the behaviour of the resident mods who really should start taking a step back from all of this.

The good news for Nadal is that as soon as he steps on court in Beijing, he can get his 150 points back without even winning a match. The bad news is that is if he earns more than 150 points in Beijing, his Vina del Mar points will be uncountable once more. The other bad news is that Djokovic increased the gap to 260 points after the Davis Cup ties at the weekend.

I'm bemused by how the 500 tournaments are sitting in Nadal's countables though. He's played 3 (Acapulco, Monte Carlo, Barcelona) so he is only missing the one post-USO one. But he's been stuck with 2 zero-pointers. That must be because he withdrew after the acceptance list was published for both tournaments, not because he was simply too injured to play - these will usually be waved if the player will arrive on site and participate in publicity etc. So maybe it was in his hands to be no.1 now after all, unless I'm missing something? (Though this is still a little odd as I'm fairly sure I remember him being at the Valencia tournament).

Anyway, unless Djokovic wins Beijing and Nadal doesn't reach the final, Nadal is no.1 after Beijing by my calculations.

The Special Juan wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Danny_1982 wrote:I went higher than the European Court of Human Rights, I spoke directly to God (Paul McGrath) to complain.

He said that he can't do anything, that rules are rules. I want to take it higher but I'm not sure where to go.

Emancipator?

Karlovic.

I believe Roger Federer, while he may be still hanging onto the crown, is still officially The King. It seems reasonable that he should arbitrate in this matter or, if he is unavailable, Tim Henman.

I have not looked back at last year but I don't think from memory Rafa played more than two 500s? If so, he will have incurred a first zero pointer when it became impossible for him to make his commitment of 4 500s during the year. He will have incurred the second zero pointer when it became impossible for him to play one post US Open. Its nothing to do with attendance and/or entry.

Born Slippy. I believe that is the case. And I pointed this out because it was IMO cruel to hand out a punishment when a player was injured. I only mentioned Murray because it might illustrate my point better by showing exactly how cruel it could be. ie if a player who had never reached the number one position was denied it because of such a punishment. I did this because many seemed to think that perhaps because Nadal had been number one before and is very likely to reach it again very soon meant that it didn't matter that he had been punished in this way.

Why this should attract some of the quite plainly ridiculous posts is beyond me. Is it because it affects Nadal? Or is it that some feel that the ATP ranking system is perfect and no one should dare question anything about it's workings? And to try to ridicule the article by saying I shouldn't use a descriptive word such as "cruel" to describe a punishment handed out to someone for being injured is a very strange criticism. What next? I hope I haven't made any spelling mistakes...

I am going to hijack your thread HE because there was something much more cruel than that which occured and that was with the BBC. There was me thinking 'Yes!' they got rid of Jonathan Overend and then to my horror find out that the baffoon is now a host on Five Live!

It should ney happen I tells ya!

Born Slippy wrote:I have not looked back at last year but I don't think from memory Rafa played more than two 500s? If so, he will have incurred a first zero pointer when it became impossible for him to make his commitment of 4 500s during the year. He will have incurred the second zero pointer when it became impossible for him to play one post US Open. Its nothing to do with attendance and/or entry.

Thanks BS, I understand now. I do agree in part with HE, in that it is rather arbitrary that those 2 zero pointers are counted when he has already played 3 ATP500 tournaments this year.
However, as I said, even if Nadal was no.1 last week, Djokovic would have overtaken him again this week.
To address HE's other point, I support Murray, but I would be totally cringing if someone had written this article about Murray.

I can only suspect that the reason the article generated widespread ridicule is largely because of the choice of the word "cruel" to describe the application of rules (rules which would be applied to ANY member of the tour, not just Nadal) as set out by the ATP.

We're talking about a tennis player who has performed impressively for many years in tournaments organised and administered by the ATP (and of course ITF) and under whose auspices has been able to earn more than 60 million dollars during his career to date, and something approaching 11m. this year alone. Deservedly so.

"Cruel" and "punishment" are not the words that would spring to the minds of most people living in the real world.

HE, out of interest, would it be cruel to Djokovic to have been no.2 last week when he had played the required tournaments and Nadal had not?

invisiblecoolers wrote:

laverfan wrote:Federer regularly used to lose to Nadal at RG, but yet was #1. How dare he? He should be stripped of his records and they should be given to Nadal?

Where is H-n when you need her (or Lydian), when we need them?

  

  

You called  

@YvonneT...

From Rankings FAQ...

Q. What are the requirements and rules for player participation for an ATP World Tour 500 tournament?

A. Top 30 players (based on 2012 year-end Emirates ATP Rankings) must play a minimum of four 500 level tournaments during the calendar year, including at least one event following the US Open (Monte Carlo Masters 1000 event will count towards the minimum of four and all penalties apply):
-- A 0-pointer for each event less than four played.
-- A 0-pointer for withdrawing from any 500 tournament after the acceptance list is out.
-- A 0-pointer for not playing at least one event after the US Open.
-- A 0-pointer can be appealed by a player to the same tribunal formed to hear 1000 suspension appeals.
-- No suspensions or fines (including no withdrawal and late withdrawal fines).

Haddie-nuff wrote:You called   

Would you be willing to reason with HE?

Nadal is healthy now, which is what matters. Nadal will get his #1 soon.

Cav wrote:

Johnyjeep wrote:Precisely the type of article which has (unfortunately) made my willingness to swing by this forum less and less.

Interesting.  Because it's exactly the kind of playground behaviour exhibited in this thread which (unfortunately) has made my willingness to swing by this forum dissipate almost completely.  And that includes the behaviour of the resident mods who really should start taking a step back from all of this.

Cav and Johnny... My un-willingness is to not silence a poster.

Would you care to explain what you are implying, via-a-vis taking a step back?

LF I am not the one to reason on this matter because frankly my belief is that Rafa plays his best tennis when he is NOT no 1.  I wouldn´t say it doesn´t bother Rafa as Im sure in some small way it does... however I think Rafa´s fans are more concerned about his No.1. status than he is. He is a hunter and always loved being No.2. to Roger so ... im sure whenever it comes, as we know it will, he will be ready

Hi LaverFan,

Mods comment is not me mate. I think you guys do a thankless task. I think you can view previous posts from each member? You'll see I've been complimentary (or at least stuck up for you guys - i think) before.

My comment was based on the almost tiresome process of having to separate the wheat from the chaff. I know the mods have no power (nor should you) to rate the quality of articles or have the power of veto. There are some good ones. And some good posters who talk sense. But as I say, it's few and far between for me (not that I'm any arbitrator of quality!). It becomes trench warfare all to often. Hence my comment re not coming on here as often anymore. It wasn't meant as a slight to the forum.

Since my last post, there has been another comment re Nadal receiving 'punishment'. Clearly, everyone knows he has received no punishment. Certainly not one that wouldn't have been dished out to any other player in the exact same circumstance.

I have absolutely nothing against Rafa. It has bugger all to do with it being Nadal. I can't emphasise this strongly enough (even if I have typed it twice!).

Quite why whether an individual has reached number 1 already or not has anything to do with it, is beyond me. For example this comment from the author of this thread:

I did this because many seemed to think that perhaps because Nadal had been number one before and is very likely to reach it again very soon meant that it didn't matter that he had been punished in this way.

I would love to know who these 'Many' are? Who are they? Where is the outcry to this 'punishment', sorry application of the rules. I have yet to read or hear any.

What should the ATP have done? Ahhh guys you know what. He'll be No.1 soon enough. You know what...stuff the rules. It's Rafa. Just let him keep those points. We'll just hope no one notices.

You always think Rafa has been hard done by. Like Tennis owes him a favour and should just make exceptions for him. It doesn't. You wanted it for the seeding at RG. You wanted it at Wimbledon. The rules are there for the other hundreds of professional (or wanna be professional) tennis players out there and have to be applied impartially. It is this staggering lack of comprehension on your part that is why, when members post sane responses, you then interpretthem as ridicule.

No system is perfect. And can change. By all means propose changes then? How could the system change for the better? But remember..what ever you propose has to be applied to EVERYONE equally. And think of the consequences of this new system. Not just how it would affect one player.

And twisting the original post to bring Murray into the argument - which was never your original intention or you would have mentioned it in the original post surely - to try and make a point is frankly amazing. Everyone knows your disdain for Murray. I doubt anyone would want different punishment, sorry rules, for Murray than the rest of the tour.

Apologies if this has gone of topic. To sum up:

The ranking system has not played a cruel trick. For reasons I explained earlier and above.

lags72 wrote:I can only suspect that the reason the article generated widespread ridicule is largely because of the choice of the word "cruel" to describe the application of rules (rules which would be applied to ANY member of the tour, not just Nadal) as set out by the ATP.

We're talking about a tennis player who has performed impressively for many years in tournaments organised and administered by the ATP (and of course ITF) and under whose auspices has been able to earn more than 60 million dollars during his career to date, and something approaching 11m. this year alone. Deservedly so.

"Cruel" and "punishment" are not the words that would spring to the minds of most people living in the real world.

Phew. It's not just me!  

laverfan wrote:@YvonneT...

From Rankings FAQ...

Q. What are the requirements and rules for player participation for an ATP World Tour 500 tournament?

A. Top 30 players (based on 2012 year-end Emirates ATP Rankings) must play a minimum of four 500 level tournaments during the calendar year, including at least one event following the US Open (Monte Carlo Masters 1000 event will count towards the minimum of four and all penalties apply):
-- A 0-pointer for each event less than four played.
-- A 0-pointer for withdrawing from any 500 tournament after the acceptance list is out.
-- A 0-pointer for not playing at least one event after the US Open.
-- A 0-pointer can be appealed by a player to the same tribunal formed to hear 1000 suspension appeals.
-- No suspensions or fines (including no withdrawal and late withdrawal fines).

Haddie-nuff wrote:You called   

Would you be willing to reason with HE?

Nadal is healthy now, which is what matters. Nadal will get his #1 soon.

laverfan.  I do know the rules in fact I posted a link to the rankings FAQ's that you have quoted from in my article. I therefore understand that they were applied correctly. But go on admit it don't you think it's a little odd (or dare I say cruel) that a player can be penalized (or to put it another way punished) for not being able to play because they have been injured. And that the penalty (or punishment) should be that they are not able to count the first points they have been able to earn after returning to play. Then isn't it ironic (or adds a twist) that if they could count those points they would be number one.

Well I do! But I will  as it's obviously highly controversial to question the all knowing ATP.

hawkeye wrote:. But go on admit it don't you think it's a little odd (or dare I say cruel) that a player can be penalized (or to put it another way punished) for not being able to play because they have been injured.

No. What would be odd is giving players points when they don't play. When JMDP missed a year-ish he went down to nearly 500 in the world. Should he have been given points for not playing so that he could remain ranked ahead of players who played? Of course not.
Maybe you'd like Murray to get extra points for missing the French Open?

As for the rest of it, I'll grant that it could be ironic, but I'll have to check with Alanis Morrisette. If she says it's ironic, then it isn't.

Its a bit weird yes, but then its not fair on everyone else below him that they wouldnt be allowed to catch him up cos he isnt playing. Cant you still take a "protected" ranking?