Ranking Points Are Ridiculous!

by hawkeye Sun Nov 06, 2011 10:02 am

First topic message reminder :

As far as Federer goes ranking points are ridiculous. I refuse to trust a system that makes out he's as low down as four in the world. If as he now can he plays a reduced schedule they will only get more ridiculous.

As long as Federer is put in the opposite side of the draw to Nadal (by playing over 600 matches, winning 16 slams and reaching the grand old age of 30 I think he's earnt that privilege) I will pay no more attention to them.

by **laverfan** Sun Nov 06, 2011 11:13 pm

This thread reminds me of what WTA watchers typically complain about the so-called 'Wozniacki' effect, especially Serena fans (I am a fan of Serena too, but prefer to point out her 'short-coming' Wink

). Serena is a great player, but lack of commitment to WTA makes it hard for her to keep the top ranking. Wozniacki (Safina, JJ, ...) has not won a slam, but how come she is #1? Erm

Same applies to Federer. He is a great player. His 'greatness' index has nothing to do with Murray being #3.

Murray has participated in 17 tournaments as you can see here - http://www.atpworldtour.com/Rankings/YTD-Singles.aspx

Federer and Djokovic have 16, Nadal has 17.

Federer chose not to defend his Shanghai points, while Murray successfully defended his title. That is the only statistical and significant difference.

Murray has 5 titles, Federer has 2. In the current mathematical universe, 2 < 5.

by **laverfan** Sun Nov 06, 2011 11:18 pm

hawkeye wrote:Ranking points do not tell the full story. Some ranking points are easier to come by than others.

I have just written to the ATP, that each ATP point requires a drop of blood per point to be deposited into a Tennis player blood bank. Wink

hawkeye wrote:Federer did not play in Asia. Does that make his serve less tricky to return?

Waiting on Nadal to answer that question. Laugh

by **laverfan** Mon Nov 07, 2011 7:38 am

A solid player, he wants all the zeroes removed from his ranking to achieve his true value to the ATP...

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Tennis/Players/Ma/A/Abdullah-Maqdas.aspx

I need to petition the ATP. Wink

by CaledonianCraig Mon Nov 07, 2011 7:45 am

laverfan wrote:A solid player, he wants all the zeroes removed from his ranking to achieve his true value to the ATP...

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Tennis/Players/Ma/A/Abdullah-Maqdas.aspx

I need to petition the ATP.

One more win and he'll move above Alex Bogdanovic. Laugh

by Guest Mon Nov 07, 2011 11:17 am

I may be stating the obvious, but the whole ranking system is there to show how players have progressed through the year, to give them a starting position the next and the opportunity to improve and or defend their points from the year before. That way, each event can use those "stats" to place players on the ladder and make it a fair divide.

Federer beat everyone at one time and was No1 for a few years, even when he wasn't winning everything, he still played well enough above the rest to keep that No1 status. Now the tables have turned and you're moaning that he should still be No1 ??!! even when Djokovic is in the same position as Federer was in 2004 and has been beating everyone and playing better.

You can't have one rule for one and another for the rest, however much of a fan you are.

by bogbrush Mon Nov 07, 2011 12:29 pm

Woah! I think nobody has said what you're saying Jubb. I think there's a debate about whether Murray is "really" the 3rd best player, founded mainly on whether when it comes to the big crunches who threatenes to win the best, but I really can't see evidence of anyone calling for Federer to be recognised as the genuine #1 right now.

My own opinion is that Murray is the #3 and the ranking is always a diferent thing from "best", but it's the closest approximation available.

by legendkillar Mon Nov 07, 2011 1:55 pm

I know most Murray fans are over-joyed by him becoming World no.3, but it must be said with caution that he will have those points to defend next year. Should he say, hypothetically he wins the AO next year, will he want to conserve his efforts so he can defend those points come end of October?? Same rule of thumb applies for Novak. He is going to need all his energy come start of the season. Look at Nadal. Apart from Monte Carlo and FO he hasn't gained anything.

That is why Federer was able to dominate the rankings for so long, by constency for years on end.

by Tenez Mon Nov 07, 2011 2:04 pm

Federer got consistent results thanks to his incredibly fragile timing.

That's what sets him apart from all other very talented players. Talent players can have a great day, a great week, a great slam, or even a great year (McEnroe's 1984), but none have had such consistent results. That was usually the feat of physical players like Borg, or Nadal on clay....Federer did better than them with more fragile weapons.

by CaledonianCraig Mon Nov 07, 2011 2:17 pm

legendkillar wrote:I know most Murray fans are over-joyed by him becoming World no.3, but it must be said with caution that he will have those points to defend next year. Should he say, hypothetically he wins the AO next year, will he want to conserve his efforts so he can defend those points come end of October?? Same rule of thumb applies for Novak. He is going to need all his energy come start of the season. Look at Nadal. Apart from Monte Carlo and FO he hasn't gained anything.

That is why Federer was able to dominate the rankings for so long, by constency for years on end.

It is swings and roundabouts though.Okay he'll need to at least reach the AO Final to defend his points but after that up until the clay court season he has very little indeed to defend. The clay court season he'll have a fair few points to defend and that will be tough and has a lot to defend on grass though he is more competent on that surface. The hard courts are a bit mixed and the points he to defend in Asia weren't all major points earners. The question is in what way will Federer go form-wise. He'll be a few months older and can he rediscover the consistency to a greater degree than this year? I have my doubts but we shall see. Obviously, Nadal and Djokovic have plenty of points to defend and the pressure will be on the pair of them to defend them.

by carrieg4 Mon Nov 07, 2011 3:05 pm

CaledonianCraig wrote:
legendkillar wrote:I know most Murray fans are over-joyed by him becoming World no.3, but it must be said with caution that he will have those points to defend next year. Should he say, hypothetically he wins the AO next year, will he want to conserve his efforts so he can defend those points come end of October?? Same rule of thumb applies for Novak. He is going to need all his energy come start of the season. Look at Nadal. Apart from Monte Carlo and FO he hasn't gained anything.

That is why Federer was able to dominate the rankings for so long, by constency for years on end.

It is swings and roundabouts though.Okay he'll need to at least reach the AO Final to defend his points but after that up until the clay court season he has very little indeed to defend. The clay court season he'll have a fair few points to defend and that will be tough and has a lot to defend on grass though he is more competent on that surface. The hard courts are a bit mixed and the points he to defend in Asia weren't all major points earners. The question is in what way will Federer go form-wise. He'll be a few months older and can he rediscover the consistency to a greater degree than this year? I have my doubts but we shall see. Obviously, Nadal and Djokovic have plenty of points to defend and the pressure will be on the pair of them to defend them.

That seems to sum it up pretty well to me Smile

by Calder106 Mon Nov 07, 2011 3:59 pm

Can't say that I am 'overjoyed' that Murray currently has the third most ranking points this season. Pleased yes, that he has managed to acrue these points and that after the USO when he was sitting comfortably in 4th slot that rather than just playing out the rest of the year he would try and get up to 3rd. If he is still there at the end of the year it's well done to him. If not it will be well done to Federer for a great end to the season.

by break_in_the_fifth Mon Nov 07, 2011 6:13 pm

Up until the asian tournaments I would have said Fed was more the number 3 player in terms of the tennis he'd produced throughout the year. However, after what Murray managed to do I think he's clearly number 3 for this year as those kind of results for me outweigh Fed's quality performances. If Fed were to win Paris and WTF and Murray was still number 3 then it would be unclear for me again as results wise they would be very close and in the slams Fed has produced better tennis. I guess the ranking system is remarkably fair though seeing as these are only small discrepencies.

by Guest Mon Nov 07, 2011 7:34 pm

BB, correct me if I'm wrong, but I read the OA as Hawkeye disagreeing that Fed should be 4th greatest player this year based on ranking stats.

Thats what my comment was aimed at.

by bogbrush Mon Nov 07, 2011 7:42 pm

He said:

I refuse to trust a system that makes out he's as low down as four in the world.

and you responded:

Federer beat everyone at one time and was No1 for a few years, even when he wasn't winning everything, he still played well enough above the rest to keep that No1 status. Now the tables have turned and you're moaning that he should still be No1 ??!!

He wasn't saying make Federer #1, he just refused to believe he was #4.

by Guest Mon Nov 07, 2011 7:58 pm

Tomatoes, tomaytoes.....I was just making the comparison between Djokovic and Fed being No1 based on ranking points in their respected eras.
Anyway, I was just jumping to conclusions as Hawkeye hasn't said what rank he believes Fed should be, I've just filled in the blanks.

But aren't you over-reacting a bit BB, it was just a throw away comment ? I'm not bashing Federer.

by bogbrush Mon Nov 07, 2011 8:57 pm

I think the overreaction was yours; you jumped on the guy and suggested he was saying Federer should be #1. All I'm doing is pointing out to you that was completely wrong.

And it's not tomatoes/tomaytoes, it's fact/fiction.

by legendkillar Mon Nov 07, 2011 10:11 pm

I think the OP is genius.

This is called I will insult ranking system because a non-slam winner is above the record slam holder.

The fans of the non-slam holder will say he deserves that ranking on form

The fans of the record slam holder will say well yeah but our guy has played the better tennis and has the goods to show for it.

by time please Mon Nov 07, 2011 10:25 pm

break_in_the_fifth wrote:Up until the asian tournaments I would have said Fed was more the number 3 player in terms of the tennis he'd produced throughout the year. However, after what Murray managed to do I think he's clearly number 3 for this year as those kind of results for me outweigh Fed's quality performances. If Fed were to win Paris and WTF and Murray was still number 3 then it would be unclear for me again as results wise they would be very close and in the slams Fed has produced better tennis. I guess the ranking system is remarkably fair though seeing as these are only small discrepencies.

I think this is a fair comment break - Fed has looked more of a threat at most of the slams (apart from Wimbledon strangely), but Murray has the very slightly better 'paper' record at the majors this year. Outside the 4 majors, then Murray has had a better season - no question - and so has the No 3 ranking, deservedly.

by Mad for Chelsea Mon Nov 07, 2011 10:30 pm

time please wrote:
break_in_the_fifth wrote:Up until the asian tournaments I would have said Fed was more the number 3 player in terms of the tennis he'd produced throughout the year. However, after what Murray managed to do I think he's clearly number 3 for this year as those kind of results for me outweigh Fed's quality performances. If Fed were to win Paris and WTF and Murray was still number 3 then it would be unclear for me again as results wise they would be very close and in the slams Fed has produced better tennis. I guess the ranking system is remarkably fair though seeing as these are only small discrepencies.

I think this is a fair comment break - Fed has looked more of a threat at most of the slams (apart from Wimbledon strangely), but Murray has the very slightly better 'paper' record at the majors this year. Outside the 4 majors, then Murray has had a better season - no question - and so has the No 3 ranking, deservedly.

that's about right I'd say, though I don't think Fed looked more of a threat at the AO either really. Of course if Fed wins Paris and the WTF then he may well (and probably will) reclaim n°3 and it will be deserved too IMO.

by time please Mon Nov 07, 2011 10:47 pm

Tbh, on reflection I don't think anyone was going to threaten Djokovic at the AO - he looked superb, just awesome from start to finish of the tournament.

by Guest Tue Nov 08, 2011 9:47 am

legendkillar wrote:... The fans of the record slam holder will say well yeah but our guy has played the better tennis and has the goods to show for it.

Evidently not this year.

Basically Andy Murray and Roger Federer have earned about the same number of countable ranking points in the rolling year to date. Andy Murray surpassing Roger Federer for the first time in his career, was a more significant event for Andy than for Roger. For Roger it is just continuing a trend: being overtaken by Raphael Nadal a few years back (Aug 2008 and then again in June 2010 after his return from injury), being overtaken by Novak Djokovac last year (July 2010) and again early this year (March 2011), and now being overtaken by Andy Murray (although they are currently very close).

However Andy hasn't put daylight between himself and Roger Federer, as have Nadal and Djokovic, and it is likely that Federer will retake third place in the rankings from him and then relinquish it again within the year.

The question is can a player ranked fourth (or third) in the world still win a Grand Slam tournament?

Current Rankings (7/11/2011):
Rank....Name........................Points.........Tourn
1........Djokovic, Novak...........13,785........19
2........Nadal, Rafael...............10,375........20
3........Murray, Andy..............7,780........19
4........Federer, Roger............7,530........19
5........Ferrer, David................4,390.........23

PS: Despite the petulant and self-indulgent nature of the OP, and speaking nothing of its quality, I will say that based on the number of comments posted, and the discussion elicited, it has been a success. Perhaps we should start a ranking system for OPs?

by legendkillar Tue Nov 08, 2011 9:54 am

Nore Staat wrote:
legendkillar wrote:... The fans of the record slam holder will say well yeah but our guy has played the better tennis and has the goods to show for it.
Evidently not this year.

Basically Andy Murray and Roger Federer have earned about the same number of countable ranking points in the rolling year to date. Andy Murray surpassing Roger Federer for the first time in his career, was a more significant event for Andy than for Roger. For Roger it is just continuing a trend: being overtaken by Raphael Nadal a few years back (Aug 2008 and then again in June 2010 after his return from injury), being overtaken by Novak Djokovac last year (July 2010) and again early this year (March 2011), and now being overtaken by Andy Murray (although they are currently very close).

However Andy hasn't put daylight between himself and Roger Federer, as have Nadal and Djokovic, and it is likely that Federer will retake third place in the rankings from him and then relinquish it again within the year.

The question is can a player ranked fourth (or third) in the world still win a Grand Slam tournament?

Current Rankings (7/11/2011):
Rank....Name........................Points.........Tourn
1........Djokovic, Novak...........13,785........19
2........Nadal, Rafael...............10,375........20
3........Murray, Andy..............7,780........19
4........Federer, Roger............7,530........19
5........Ferrer, David................4,390.........23

PS: Despite the petulant and self-indulgent nature of the OP, and speaking nothing of its quality, I will say that based on the number of comments posted, and the discussion elicited, it has been a success. Perhaps we should start a ranking system for OP's?

My point on 'Goods' was aimed at Slams.

I think the OP's intent was to start a bitching match between Murray and Federer fans which would've have led off topic because 'Slams' no doubt would have been mentioned despite both not winning any this year.

Had Del Potro for example been in the top 4, I am sure this thread would have not existed.

That might sound far fetched, but I think the OP might be slightly disappointed that no-one took a bite out of the cherry.

by legendkillar Tue Nov 08, 2011 10:04 am

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

by Mad for Chelsea Tue Nov 08, 2011 10:07 am

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

would be slightly harsh though, as the number two has also reached two slam finals off the clay and two MS finals as well Wink

by legendkillar Tue Nov 08, 2011 10:08 am

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

would be slightly harsh though, as the number two has also reached two slam finals off the clay and two MS finals as well

It would, but the OP is not interested in finishing in 2nd place Wink

by CaledonianCraig Tue Nov 08, 2011 10:13 am

Nore Staat wrote:

However Andy hasn't put daylight between himself and Roger Federer, as have Nadal and Djokovic, and it is likely that Federer will retake third place in the rankings from him and then relinquish it again

Err, he only overtook Federer in the rankings one tournament ago and the following tournament Andy missed through injury so to expect him to already put distance between him and Federer in the rankings is impossible for anybody. Also please remember that Federer needs to win the World Tour Finals just to defend his points (by no means certain) whilst Andy Murray has nowhere near the same amount of points to defend. I'll be brave (not really) and say come the end of the year Andy will still be ranked No.3 in the world for what it is worth. No real difference I know between 3 and 4 since you still get a similarly tough draw at slam semis.

by Guest Tue Nov 08, 2011 10:30 am

bogbrush wrote:I think the overreaction was yours; you jumped on the guy and suggested he was saying Federer should be #1. All I'm doing is pointing out to you that was completely wrong.

And it's not tomatoes/tomaytoes, it's fact/fiction.

How do you know its wrong, Hawkeye hasn't mentioned what rank he/she believes Federer should be. It can't be 3, that would be an insult to Roger and not hold any water as an argument about ranking, position 2? it has to be above Nadal as Hawkeye has said "As long as Federer is put in the opposite side of the draw to Nadal (by playing over 600 matches, winning 16 slams and reaching the grand old age of 30 I think he's earnt that privilege) I will pay no more attention to them" because you can't have two players in the same spot.

That leaves only one spot for Federer, so as you can see, I was right and he/she believes Federer should be No1.

Case closed...next!

by CaledonianCraig Tue Nov 08, 2011 11:39 am

In the present day Federer deserves to be where he is.....fourth. Hence the ranking points are not ridulous as claimed by the OP. Case closed as bogbrush would say.

by hawkeye Tue Nov 08, 2011 3:53 pm

Jubbahey wrote:
bogbrush wrote:I think the overreaction was yours; you jumped on the guy and suggested he was saying Federer should be #1. All I'm doing is pointing out to you that was completely wrong.

And it's not tomatoes/tomaytoes, it's fact/fiction.

How do you know its wrong, Hawkeye hasn't mentioned what rank he/she believes Federer should be. It can't be 3, that would be an insult to Roger and not hold any water as an argument about ranking, position 2? it has to be above Nadal as Hawkeye has said "As long as Federer is put in the opposite side of the draw to Nadal (by playing over 600 matches, winning 16 slams and reaching the grand old age of 30 I think he's earnt that privilege) I will pay no more attention to them" because you can't have two players in the same spot.

That leaves only one spot for Federer, so as you can see, I was right and he/she believes Federer should be No1.

Case closed...next!

I didn't say what rank Federer should be because as I said the whole idea of ranking points is ridiculous as far as he is concerned. Just like the ATP allows players over a certain age or players that have played a certain number of matches Federer IMO has earnt the right to ignore them. He should be allowed to play a reduced schedule without penalties and be able to placed in the opposite side of the draw to a player of his choice. I think he would choose Nadal.

This has nothing to do with Murray. Murray of course still has to pay attention to ranking points.

Nore Staat. Why the mean comment?

by time please Tue Nov 08, 2011 4:08 pm

I understand your point above hawkeye - it's an emotional response to a great player. At one time of course the Wimbledon defending champion just got a bye to the final, so s/he was assured of being able to defend the title.

It just wouldn't work in today's game at all - we are in the professional not amateur phase, and we would soon get clogged up at the top end with all the great players reaching their dotage which would be ludicrously unfair on the up and coming.

by hawkeye Tue Nov 08, 2011 4:11 pm

time please

If only the tour would be "clogged up at the top end with all the great players". Sigh...

by Positively 4th Street Tue Nov 08, 2011 4:23 pm

I don't think it really matters. Certainly between #3 and #4. Being #5 is a different matter, but don't see that happening anytime soon to Federer.

Ranking points can't be put on hiatus while the great man still struts his stuff. Sport always moves on, there is room for sentiment but that's in our memories. It's a fate that befalls most greats, the slide down the rankings. I remember it vividly with Sampras and Agassi. Under this protected ranking system they could have locked out #1 and #2 until retirement, which would have been ridiculous given Pete couldn't even beat George Bastl...

by sirfredperry Tue Nov 08, 2011 4:46 pm

Not sure what all the fuss is about with the ranking points. Now if it was the women's tour, with a slamless number one at the top and a number one who only reached ONE GS semi during the season - then there might be come cause for complaint.
Besides, a strong finish by Fed - like last year - won't see him that far behind the top three. Thousands of points can disappear in a flash (remember Rafa's big lead in 09 and Fed's in 2010 just kinda vanishing).

by Tenez Tue Nov 08, 2011 5:25 pm

CaledonianCraig wrote:In the present day Federer deserves to be where he is.....fourth. Hence the ranking points are not ridulous as claimed by the OP. Case closed as bogbrush would say.

What do you mean by "deserve"? In terms of his tennis Fed is certainly closer to the top 2 than Murray. If you are talking about ATP points, sure, but you can add " Because Fed missed the Asian swing, he scored less points in total".

But someone who has been the "well deserved number 3 7 months out of 9" cannot be fairly deserving the number 4th spot because he was resting niggling injuries in Asia.

There is a case to argue that A big chunk of Murray's total points were acquired when the number 1, 2 or 3 were missing or tired. SO is his number 3 spot that "deserved"?

That's why I think you are clutching at straws.

by djlovesyou Tue Nov 08, 2011 7:07 pm

Yep. Ranking points are all wrong.

They should employ a strictly come dancing style judging panel to decide how many points a player gets from an event. So if Federer loses in the quarters, but does it in great style, they can give him more points than Murray who may have got to the final and lost.

I reckon they should actually use the same judges too.

by time please Tue Nov 08, 2011 7:08 pm

we could have bottom two, and vote one out each day?

by CaledonianCraig Tue Nov 08, 2011 8:09 pm

Tenez wrote:
CaledonianCraig wrote:In the present day Federer deserves to be where he is.....fourth. Hence the ranking points are not ridulous as claimed by the OP. Case closed as bogbrush would say.

What do you mean by "deserve"? In terms of his tennis Fed is certainly closer to the top 2 than Murray. If you are talking about ATP points, sure, but you can add " Because Fed missed the Asian swing, he scored less points in total".

But someone who has been the "well deserved number 3 7 months out of 9" cannot be fairly deserving the number 4th spot because he was resting niggling injuries in Asia.

There is a case to argue that A big chunk of Murray's total points were acquired when the number 1, 2 or 3 were missing or tired. SO is his number 3 spot that "deserved"?

That's why I think you are clutching at straws.

Well I did say in the present day so yes did mean by ranking point system. And no this has nothing to do with the Asian swing as Federer chose to give it a miss for his own reasons and as he and Andy Murray have played the same amount of ranking tournaments neither have had an advantage over one another.

by bogbrush Tue Nov 08, 2011 8:13 pm

CaledonianCraig wrote:In the present day Federer deserves to be where he is.....fourth. Hence the ranking points are not ridulous as claimed by the OP. Case closed as bogbrush would say.

Yeah, I said the ranking is correct. Have done throughout the thread.

It's only Jubbahey who has made a bit of a mess of trying to be clever on the OP and is now digging the hole deeper and deeper trying to justify himself.

by bogbrush Tue Nov 08, 2011 8:15 pm

hawkeye wrote:
Jubbahey wrote:
bogbrush wrote:I think the overreaction was yours; you jumped on the guy and suggested he was saying Federer should be #1. All I'm doing is pointing out to you that was completely wrong.

And it's not tomatoes/tomaytoes, it's fact/fiction.

How do you know its wrong, Hawkeye hasn't mentioned what rank he/she believes Federer should be. It can't be 3, that would be an insult to Roger and not hold any water as an argument about ranking, position 2? it has to be above Nadal as Hawkeye has said "As long as Federer is put in the opposite side of the draw to Nadal (by playing over 600 matches, winning 16 slams and reaching the grand old age of 30 I think he's earnt that privilege) I will pay no more attention to them" because you can't have two players in the same spot.

That leaves only one spot for Federer, so as you can see, I was right and he/she believes Federer should be No1.

Case closed...next!

I didn't say what rank Federer should be because as I said the whole idea of ranking points is ridiculous as far as he is concerned. Just like the ATP allows players over a certain age or players that have played a certain number of matches Federer IMO has earnt the right to ignore them. He should be allowed to play a reduced schedule without penalties and be able to placed in the opposite side of the draw to a player of his choice. I think he would choose Nadal.

This has nothing to do with Murray. Murray of course still has to pay attention to ranking points.

Nore Staat. Why the mean comment?

I've given up trying to help Jubb out of the hole he dug himself into, instead I just decided that he lost his head because you weren't all over Murray and let it go at that.

by CaledonianCraig Tue Nov 08, 2011 8:21 pm

Well to be fair the OP was full of fanciful and unfounded stuff. Such as the rankings are ridiculous because it dares to place Federer in fourth when we the majority agree that this year he is there on merit and also if he does reduce his schedule then of course he will and should drop down the rankings and that is as it should be no matter who the player is. Finally, the OP suggests that the draw should be manipulated to aid Roger as I read it. What next?? Yikes

by Guest Tue Nov 08, 2011 8:37 pm

Nore Staat wrote: ... it is likely that Federer will retake third place in the rankings from him and then relinquish it again within the year ...

Just to clarify I was referring to the rolling year rather than the calender year.

by bogbrush Tue Nov 08, 2011 8:46 pm

CaledonianCraig wrote:Well to be fair the OP was full of fanciful and unfounded stuff. Such as the rankings are ridiculous because it dares to place Federer in fourth when we the majority agree that this year he is there on merit and also if he does reduce his schedule then of course he will and should drop down the rankings and that is as it should be no matter who the player is. Finally, the OP suggests that the draw should be manipulated to aid Roger as I read it. What next??

Well to be absolutely fair that is not what Jubbahey criticised him for. He criticused him for saying Federer should be #1, which he never said.

If we're going to be fair we have to do more than decide whose side someone is on and then consider an erroneous attack is somewhat justified by being on a person on the other side. You'd agree with that, right?

by time please Tue Nov 08, 2011 9:13 pm

you is bad Mr BB, you is bad Laugh

by time please Tue Nov 08, 2011 9:14 pm

PS - come here and sit by me!

by CaledonianCraig Tue Nov 08, 2011 9:14 pm

bogbrush wrote:
CaledonianCraig wrote:Well to be fair the OP was full of fanciful and unfounded stuff. Such as the rankings are ridiculous because it dares to place Federer in fourth when we the majority agree that this year he is there on merit and also if he does reduce his schedule then of course he will and should drop down the rankings and that is as it should be no matter who the player is. Finally, the OP suggests that the draw should be manipulated to aid Roger as I read it. What next??
Well to be absolutely fair that is not what Jubbahey criticised him for. He criticused him for saying Federer should be #1, which he never said.

If we're going to be fair we have to do more than decide whose side someone is on and then consider an erroneous attack is somewhat justified by being on a person on the other side. You'd agree with that, right?

But if you read it closely it could be presumed the OP felt Federer should be No.1 as they do say Fed should be in the opposite part of the draw to Rafael Nadal. Now as we know Nadal in world No.2 so the only way Roger would be guaranteed to be in the other half of the draw would be by him being ranked No.1 would it not?

by hawkeye Tue Nov 08, 2011 10:15 pm

Caladonian Craig

Please read my 3.53 post.

I was interested to hear Peter Flemming on Sky discussing this very issue. Apparently next year Federer will be excluded from ALL mandatory ATP tournaments. Flemming said something like "how will that work with the rankings?" I felt like shouting "Just ignore them!"

by CaledonianCraig Wed Nov 09, 2011 6:40 am

Sorry hawkeye but ranking points should apply to EVERYONE regardless. If players cannot keep up the schedule then they can expect their ranking to plummet and this is as it should be and always has been throughout the history of tennis. Any suggestion for any other type of system where a certain players ranking points are forever frozen when fit to play is quite frankly an insult to every other player on the tennis circuit from Novak Djokovic to Alex Bogdanovic and beyond. Also I'd be well nigh certain that Roger himself would refuse to have given to himself as well or see ever given to anyone else.

by bogbrush Wed Nov 09, 2011 9:26 am

CaledonianCraig wrote:
bogbrush wrote:
CaledonianCraig wrote:Well to be fair the OP was full of fanciful and unfounded stuff. Such as the rankings are ridiculous because it dares to place Federer in fourth when we the majority agree that this year he is there on merit and also if he does reduce his schedule then of course he will and should drop down the rankings and that is as it should be no matter who the player is. Finally, the OP suggests that the draw should be manipulated to aid Roger as I read it. What next??
Well to be absolutely fair that is not what Jubbahey criticised him for. He criticused him for saying Federer should be #1, which he never said.

If we're going to be fair we have to do more than decide whose side someone is on and then consider an erroneous attack is somewhat justified by being on a person on the other side. You'd agree with that, right?

But if you read it closely it could be presumed the OP felt Federer should be No.1 as they do say Fed should be in the opposite part of the draw to Rafael Nadal. Now as we know Nadal in world No.2 so the only way Roger would be guaranteed to be in the other half of the draw would be by him being ranked No.1 would it not?

Nonsense. You're reaching, and connecting his separate desire to see Fedal finals to his belief that Roger is better than #4. Nowhere has he even hinted that he thinks Federer should be ranked above Djokovic or Nadal.

A better question might be why you, who make great play of the need for correct standards of debate, are supporting the absurd position Jubbahey took to put words into the OPs mouth, and indeed now to construct fragile arguments to cement that. I am forced to consider seriously that your allegience is basically tribal; that because Jubb was "on Murrays side" that makes what he said ok by you. Not exactly the standards you extolled on other threads is it?

by CaledonianCraig Wed Nov 09, 2011 9:35 am

We could use the same argument for yourself fighting in hawkeye's corner as a Federer fan could we not? Read the original post again and tell me what she was getting at then or where she thought Federer should be placed. After all Nadal is ranked 2 and since the OP is quoted as saying 'As long as Federer is put in the opposite side of the draw to Nadal (by playing over 600 matches, winning 16 slams and reaching the grand old age of 30 I think he's earnt that privilege) I will pay no more attention to them' then the only place Fed could be seeded to be guaranteed to miss Nadal in the draw at the moment is No.1 is it not?

by Calder106 Wed Nov 09, 2011 10:04 am

"I didn't say what rank Federer should be because as I said the whole idea of ranking points is ridiculous as far as he is concerned. Just like the ATP allows players over a certain age or players that have played a certain number of matches Federer IMO has earnt the right to ignore them. He should be allowed to play a reduced schedule without penalties and be able to placed in the opposite side of the draw to a player of his choice. I think he would choose Nadal."

Ok we are arguing semantics now. Let's agree that the OP never said Federer should currently be ranked number 1. What they did say was as quoted above. It looks like what they want is to make him an honorary member of the tour who is either outside of the ranking system completely, gets a protected ranking slot, or is given points even when he doesn't play in mandatory events. Obviously the concept suggested does not hold much water but the question is in this Utopian world where would Federer be placed is in the draw. Is the OP saying that he should be seeded to be a finalist, semi-finalist, quarter finalist etc. as long as he avoids Nadal.

by Sponsored content