Protected ranking - for and against; Roger and Rafa

First topic message reminder :

okay, not doing this again, it's too much like hard work but thought I would painstakingly copy Neil Harman's article from today's Times (that is Friday 25th November).

Interest difference in opinion between Roger and Rafa - have to say for the good of the tour, I hope very much that Roger and the nays will win this one. Discuss :

Article in The Times by Neil Harman

"The top eight players in the men’s game have been asked in London this week what they think of their sport adopting the same two-year ranking system that has protected the best golfers and limited the opportunities for those outside to enjoy top-ten status. Roger Federer is dead against it.
As an intriguing backdrop to the Barclays ATP World Tour Finals, not only has the position of ATP chief executive been prominent in the debating chamber — with Richard Krajicek, the Dutchman, a controversial front-runner — but so has something that would have a profound effect on fairness and opportunities for professional players to better themselves.
The Times understands that all those in the field for this event were sounded out as to what they thought of adopting a new approach and that, for the most part, the reaction was favourable. From his response yesterday, it is certain that Federer was not one of the “Ayes”.
The 30-year-old Swiss has spent more time in the top ten than anyone else playing the game at present, having been No 1 for a record 237 consecutive weeks and inside the highest echelon since October 2002. In many respects, a two-year “rolling” system would help to embellish his legacy — if it needs embellishing.
As president of the Player Council and just being who he is, his comments carry significant weight. “It’s not a good thing for the lower-ranked players,” Federer said. “It’s going to be a struggle for them to make a big breakthrough. The dream of [these players] of having one great tournament, then making a [ranking] move, is not going to happen.
“If we have a two-year ranking, things would be slow and nothing would really move.
“I can’t support it as the president and I have to look all the players in the eye. I know it could be a good thing for me or Rafa [Nadal] because we would stay at the top for a very long time. It would take something extraordinary for us to move down. For the lower-ranked players, though, it is simply not a good thing.”
For those in favour, among whom Nadal is prominent, it is obviously aimed at prolonging the careers of those who have already made it to the upper reaches.
“With a two-year rolling ranking system, if you stop being No 5 of the world, you’re not going to be the No 6 when you come back, but maybe you’re going to be No 14, 15,” Nadal has said. “But with the way the ranking is done today, that’s not happening. If you have an injury for three months, five months, you’re done.”
But Nadal, who blazed a route through the sport as a teenager, has not really had to go through the crises and rigours that affect 95 per cent of the circuit. The points distribution is already heavily weighted in favour of the high rollers. It becomes more and more difficult to establish a foothold on the career ladder and that cannot be fair.
When Tiger Woods was at the centre of a personal firestorm near the end of 2009, he held the world No 1 position on the PGA Tour for another year, although he did not play for several months and has not won a tournament since he returned. Yet it was not until a year later that Lee Westwood replaced him at the top of the rankings.
“I like golf but I couldn’t tell you who’s in the top ten right now,” Federer said. “I couldn’t even mention four players. This is where tennis lives, for the weekly and yearly rankings. You guys love it and it stirs debates about what is going on.”
There is also a protected ranking on the ATP Tour, which allows players who have missed at least six months of play to return with special exemptions over a period of nine months or nine tournaments. That has worked well.
On the subject of a new chief executive, Federer said that the process was continuing but that it was a difficult job because “you’ll always upset someone on some side”.
He said the Player Council could only offer an opinion but that the decision ultimately rested with the board, three of whom the players nominate. "





[i]

Tenez wrote:Would have Nadal ever been number 1 in the world with a 24 months ranking? Probably but not for long as Federer was dominant before and after 2008 so little chance there and now Djoko has been so dominant this year that Nadal would quickly lose his.

That's a very good point - Rafa became No 1 for the first time in August 2008, wasn't it and then Fed took it back a year later, only to hand it back to Rafa again, was it just before W 2010, and it was wrestled from Rafa's grasp 12 months later at W by Djokovic.

I hadn't realised until the commentators were talking on Sky during WTF that there is quite a difference in the year end bonuses between say No 4 and No 3 and that each ranking place makes quite a difference with endorsements as well of course.