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]

NITB, is he pushing the system though? I'm pretty sure this wasn't his idea he just supports it for his own reasons. I wouldn't be happy if the rankings became 2 year as I think they are almost perfect as they are.

As for the personal attack well that is kind of what it has become. I'm not disputing his point of view is bad for tennis, I'm just saying that I think he's considerate enough to hold that view for other reasons than personal gain whereas others believe he holds that view because it falls in line with the rest of his 'character'.

break_in_the_fifth wrote:NITB, is he pushing the system though? I'm pretty sure this wasn't his idea he just supports it for his own reasons. I wouldn't be happy if the rankings became 2 year as I think they are almost perfect as they are.

As for the personal attack well that is kind of what it has become. I'm not disputing his point of view is bad for tennis, I'm just saying that I think he's considerate enough to hold that view for other reasons than personal gain whereas others believe he holds that view because it falls in line with the rest of his 'character'.

According to the article we are all commenting on Nadal seems to be advocating the idea and Federer opposing it.

This is Rafa's reasoning and it is embarrassing:

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.”

So you are done if you face the same barriers as face someone trying to make it in the game? It's total cobblers. If you are genuinely injured injured and coming back you'd probably want to get back in via a few 250's and work yourself back up to scratch. You might get a tough draw in a slam or a masters once or twice, but if you are in truth worthy of a place in the top 5 you'll take that quickly in your stride. If you are not up to working your way up through the rankings you deserve to be done as a top 5 anyway don't you? The current system is not only much fairer to all, it has been part of the essence of the rythmn of the highly successful men's tour for near 40 years. And Nadal would change all that to help a top player get back up the rankings a bit quicker after injury?

Think how embarrassing it would be now if Djoko had not managed to get to No 1 until some time in september or even now because Rafa's no 1 ranking was still riding on 2010.

It is an embarrassingly one-eyed way of seeing things, wanting a rule change to help those who need it least at the expense of others. The current system is eminently fair to those coming back from injury because they can get back quick.

It's a rare PR blunder from Rafa.

While some of the comments have turned against Nadal, and yes I don't agree with his logic. I support Federer in what he says and agree with the principles as he is clearly thinking of the sport and the players, whereas Nadal, well they are not reading from the same hymn sheet.

I think if your injured, then no you shouldn't be given a protected ranking. I think injuries can be built up by the amount of tennis played and therefore I think the players have a choice as to what tournaments they can participate in. I think this would determine player ethics and priorities, in terms are they going to turn up to tournament half cooked and not play well at all and pick up a cheque whereas a player lower down in the rankings could do lots with one opportunity.

However I do think a protected ranking is needed for players with illness's, like with mono being an example where Federer himself has suffered it and Ancic never recovered from it and Soderling the poor thing has had it and plummeted down the rankings as a result and maybe time away from the court would enable a full recovery for the man. I think illness's they should be given a 3 month protected ranking.

Fair enough I misinterpreted what you meant by pushing. The personal attack stuff comes into it as people are effectively suggesting that he'd use his position for his own personal gain.

barrystar wrote:It is an embarrassingly one-eyed way of seeing things, wanting a rule change to help those who need it least at the expense of others. The current system is eminently fair to those coming back from injury because they can get back quick.

It's a rare PR blunder from Rafa.

No different than what you see on the court. Constantly bending the rule. Now wanting to change the schedule to adapt it to his game and while we are at it, changing the ranking so it can be all about him again.

He still doesn't see anything wrong with him or his game...it's the sport that needs to change! Exactly what Toni was saying in an article after the USO!!!

why would he tenez, he's not you!

break_in_the_fifth wrote:Fair enough I misinterpreted what you meant by pushing. The personal attack stuff comes into it as people are effectively suggesting that he'd use his position for his own personal gain.

That's understood. He wouldn't do it for your gain or mine

legendkillar wrote:However I do think a protected ranking is needed for players with illness's, like with mono being an example where Federer himself has suffered it and Ancic never recovered from it and Soderling the poor thing has had it and plummeted down the rankings as a result and maybe time away from the court would enable a full recovery for the man. I think illness's they should be given a 3 month protected ranking.

I can understand the principle and it is good to have a system that cares for its players but it's absolutely impossible to manage and it woudl be wrong trying to. We cannot eliminate the factor luck in Life. Being injured or catching a virus is simply part of life and needs to be incorporated. It coudl be car accident or else. We just have to accept it.

But what really defeats Nadal's argument very easily is when considering players who haven't had the success yet but are about to reach the very top. An injury will now make it twice as hard as the current system to catch up and make a name for themselves. Imagine Raonic was about to jump right to the top but an injury keeping him 5 months off court will cost him 2 years before he can have a proper go at claiming his place in the top 10.

It woudl be extremely unfair. I'd like to ask Nadal view about it when he has slid down the ranking.

break_in_the_fifth wrote:why would he tenez, he's not you!

Autocritic should be available to all! it would make a better world.

noleisthebest wrote:

break_in_the_fifth wrote:Fair enough I misinterpreted what you meant by pushing. The personal attack stuff comes into it as people are effectively suggesting that he'd use his position for his own personal gain.

That's understood. He wouldn't do it for your gain or mine

That's because we're not, to my knowledge, professional tennis players unless you're really Tipsarevic which would explain a lot.

Tenez wrote:

legendkillar wrote:However I do think a protected ranking is needed for players with illness's, like with mono being an example where Federer himself has suffered it and Ancic never recovered from it and Soderling the poor thing has had it and plummeted down the rankings as a result and maybe time away from the court would enable a full recovery for the man. I think illness's they should be given a 3 month protected ranking.

I can understand the principle and it is good to have a system that cares for its players but it's absolutely impossible to manage and it woudl be wrong trying to. We cannot eliminate the factor luck in Life. Being injured or catching a virus is simply part of life and needs to be incorporated. It coudl be car accident or else. We just have to accept it.

But what really defeats Nadal's argument very easily is when considering players who haven't had the success yet but are about to reach the very top. An injury will now make it twice as hard as the current system to catch up and make a name for themselves. Imagine Raonic was about to jump right to the top but an injury keeping him 5 months off court will cost him 2 years before he can have a proper go at claiming his place in the top 10.

It woudl be extremely unfair. I'd like to ask Nadal view about it when he has slid down the ranking.

It is a system that could work. Injuries can be prolonged. Take Murray. Clearly has put his body before ranking points by pulling out. When players then play on with niggling injuries and take a long break from the game should not get a protected ranking, however with illness's I think more needs to be done because sometimes like in Ancic's case, they may never fully recover. How Federer played through it is beyond me. A friend of mine had and was off work for 4 months and she still hasn't recovered.

I think like so many have said, Nadal has had a rather 'self-centered' view and is clearly thinking of his own position. Injuries can be managed and if players choose to play on against doctors advice, why should they get protection?

Also a classic example of injury devastating a players form is Del Potro. It is difficult to ever see him get amongst the top 10 again in the near future.

legendkillar wrote:Also a classic example of injury devastating a players form is Del Potro. It is difficult to ever see him get amongst the top 10 again in the near future.

He is 11

Tenez wrote:

legendkillar wrote:Also a classic example of injury devastating a players form is Del Potro. It is difficult to ever see him get amongst the top 10 again in the near future.

He is 11

He is? He wasn't there the other week I checked!

legendkillar wrote:Also a classic example of injury devastating a players form is Del Potro. It is difficult to ever see him get amongst the top 10 again in the near future.

That's because he's still not as good as the top 10 yet.

Tenez wrote:

break_in_the_fifth wrote:why would he tenez, he's not you!

Autocritic should be available to all! it would make a better world.

He looks within himself, sees a 10 slam winner who's overcome the odds to get this far. He marvels at his mental strength, discipline and unwavering adherance to his game plan. Tennis has given him so much so now he wants to make a positive change in the men's game and makes the wrong choice when an opportunity comes along.

I'm sorry if this seems stupid but what would happen with the WTF if this would happen?? Would they do it every other year because the ranking points would build up to that point?
Can't seem to get my head around this one, nor why anyone would want to change the system to be honest.

Good point actually Harpo. We shoudl ask Nadal what he thinks about it.

HarpoMars wrote:I'm sorry if this seems stupid but what would happen with the WTF if this would happen?? Would they do it every other year because the ranking points would build up to that point?
Can't seem to get my head around this one, nor why anyone would want to change the system to be honest.

Never thought about that.

They'd have to call it the two year ending championships

noleisthebest wrote:I don't know what Djokovic thinks. Do you?

The idea is bad, and being zealous about tennis, I have a perfect right to say what I think without trying to make everyone happy which seems to be the trend in this politically correct world gone mad.

You are a tad sensitive. It was a genuine question, I just think that prejudices are influencing opinions here a fair bit. Of course you can say what you think, as I can ask questions as I see fit and question whether people are judging this issue alone.

noleisthebest wrote:

break_in_the_fifth wrote:Well I guess it just comes down to I trust Nadal's integrity and you guys don't. I'm not saying it's a good idea, I'm just saying I don't believe he has an ulterior motive for his position on this issue. I don't believe he wants to win or cares about ranking badly enough to compromise his morals. In any case I think you guys especially tenez are overreacting to something that's just a concept and is not going to be implemented anyway. Nadal's not on a campaign to ruin the sport.

As far as I am concerned, I am not upset because Nadal is tired etc. that's his career and way of handling himself.
What I'm upset about is that he is now suddenly pushing the system that is only going to make matters worse.
As usual thin-skinned fans all see it as personal attack and fail to see the big picture which is NOT GOOD for tennis.

I agree with b_i_t_fifth here. As usual though, some rabid posters want to bring their issues with a certain player to bear, thus obscuring the bigger picture, which is that this would be a bad move for tennis.

Positively 4th Street wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:

break_in_the_fifth wrote:Well I guess it just comes down to I trust Nadal's integrity and you guys don't. I'm not saying it's a good idea, I'm just saying I don't believe he has an ulterior motive for his position on this issue. I don't believe he wants to win or cares about ranking badly enough to compromise his morals. In any case I think you guys especially tenez are overreacting to something that's just a concept and is not going to be implemented anyway. Nadal's not on a campaign to ruin the sport.

As far as I am concerned, I am not upset because Nadal is tired etc. that's his career and way of handling himself.
What I'm upset about is that he is now suddenly pushing the system that is only going to make matters worse.
As usual thin-skinned fans all see it as personal attack and fail to see the big picture which is NOT GOOD for tennis.

I agree with b_i_t_fifth here. As usual though, some rabid posters want to bring their issues with a certain player to bear, thus obscuring the bigger picture, which is that this would be a bad move for tennis.

Not trying to be patronisng, but it would help if you read the article you are commenting on rather than just trying to pick an argument...

noleisthebest wrote:Not trying to be patronisng, but it would help if you read the article you are commenting on rather than just trying to pick an argument...

Not trying, yet succeeding. I actually subscribe to the Times and like reading what Neil Harman has to say, and had already read this article before it was posted here. Dislike for Nadal is evident in a few posts, which is fine and the posters prerogative, but I am equally entitled to point out that I think there is some bias on display. Perhaps it would help if you read the comments thus far, or climbed down from your high horse?

Positively 4th Street wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:Not trying to be patronisng, but it would help if you read the article you are commenting on rather than just trying to pick an argument...

Not trying, yet succeeding. I actually subscribe to the Times and like reading what Neil Harman has to say, and had already read this article before it was posted here. Dislike for Nadal is evident in a few posts, which is fine and the posters prerogative, but I am equally entitled to point out that I think there is some bias on display. Perhaps it would help if you read the comments thus far, or climbed down from your high horse?

Like this?

http://i3.ytimg.com/vi/RMnnIhnm8UU/0.jpg

break_in_the_fifth wrote:

Tenez wrote:

break_in_the_fifth wrote:why would he tenez, he's not you!

Autocritic should be available to all! it would make a better world.

He looks within himself, sees a 10 slam winner who's overcome the odds to get this far. He marvels at his mental strength, discipline and unwavering adherance to his game plan. Tennis has given him so much so now he wants to make a positive change in the men's game and makes the wrong choice when an opportunity comes along.

Poor lamb, are we now saying he is not the brightest light in the harbour? It is pretty obvious to everyone else that the choice Rafa would make would benefit the top guys and massively disadvantage the lower ranked players and the up and coming young players.

He benefitted with a rapid rise from the old system, but now he is at the top of his perch, he'd quite like it changed to suit.

Much like that, yes. Though I'd expect you to be more graceful

I can't decide whether they are tiny people or if that's a giant plant pot.

noleisthebest wrote:

Positively 4th Street wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:Not trying to be patronisng, but it would help if you read the article you are commenting on rather than just trying to pick an argument...

Not trying, yet succeeding. I actually subscribe to the Times and like reading what Neil Harman has to say, and had already read this article before it was posted here. Dislike for Nadal is evident in a few posts, which is fine and the posters prerogative, but I am equally entitled to point out that I think there is some bias on display. Perhaps it would help if you read the comments thus far, or climbed down from your high horse?

Like this?

http://i3.ytimg.com/vi/RMnnIhnm8UU/0.jpg

That's animal abuse. Call the RSPCA.

time please wrote: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.

Who are the so-called 'others'? Why does Harman not name them in the article?

Harman follows Murray, has Murray said anything on this? The following link conveys the opposite of what the 2-year ranking espouses - http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2009/sep/03/andy-murray-williams-sisters-rankings

Are the Top 10, Top 50, Top 100, etc. involved?

Nadal is using Del Potro (currently #11) as an example, but that is an extreme case, with two separate injury windows. Tsonga has had an injury prone career (so have many others), but he seems to be doing all right. So the example also serves as a counterpoint to the 2-year model.

Instead of Nadal-bashing, can the debate focus on merits/demerits of a 2-year system?

there are no merits. if a player gets injured then its right that he work his way up the ranks like delpotro is doing now.

its patently unfair on the lower ranked players to be penalised at the expense of the higher ranked player

I think there is one massive point people are overlooking and Nadal himself has too. Who is to say that when a player is injured that when he returns will play at the level that the ranking held justified? Seriously Del Potro didn't look like a World No.5 when he came back, so it stands the reason that that in itself is a doing an injustice to the player protected and also the players below that ranking playing at that level.

All you have to do is look at golf to kill the idea. Exactly as Federer says, Woods was #1 when he was really #30, the ranking is a joke and it kills interest.

Not impressed with Nadal at all, very selfish and self-serving.

legendkillar wrote:I think there is one massive point people are overlooking and Nadal himself has too. Who is to say that when a player is injured that when he returns will play at the level that the ranking held justified? Seriously Del Potro didn't look like a World No.5 when he came back, so it stands the reason that that in itself is a doing an injustice to the player protected and also the players below that ranking playing at that level.

Exactly.

All ranking systems protect the top players. Thats what they are there for. Saying that a one year system is good for lower ranked players and a two year one for higher ranked players is a bit simplistic.

One of the problems with a yearly system is that when players do well at a particular tounament one year they have to defend those points at the same time the next year. They can win the tournament again and still drop down the rankings. All the knowledable tennis fans on 606v2 of course understand why this happens. I don't think its clear to the more casual fan though and I always have sympathy for any player this happens to. Not because it is wrong but because it feels wrong...

The best way to help lower ranked players increase their rankings would be to increase points available for early round wins. Is it fair that top players get a bye in the first round of Masters events? They can gain points so much more easily than lower ranked players. I'm also not so sure about all the points thrown about to the top 8 players at the WTF. 200 points for a RR win?

Good grief! Can't noleisthebest and Tenez start their own article entitled "How Nadal is ruining tennis and 100 other things I don't like about him"...

I'm sure they enjoy their back and forth character assasination but it gets a bit tedious to have to see it on every thread.

One of the problems with a yearly system is that when players do well at a particular tounament one year they have to defend those points at the same time the next year. They can win the tournament again and still drop down the rankin"

I don't think you have this right. If a player matches his previous year performance he maintains his ranking not drop it, unless his performance has been outstripped by others

hawkeye wrote:Good grief! Can't noleisthebest and Tenez start their own article entitled "How Nadal is ruining tennis and 100 other things I don't like about him"...

I'm sure they enjoy their back and forth character assasination but it gets a bit tedious to have to see it on every thread.

you watch way too much TV ....

coolpixel

Of course if a player matches a previous years performance he will maintain his own points. But like you say if another player does better than previous year even if its just to win a round he could overtake a player that has won the tournament.

I tried to make it clear that I wasn't disputing that. Its just the way an annual ranking system works. I do think that defending ranking points from a previous year is something the more casual fan doesn't understand because there is always lots of disbelief, explanation and discussion when this situation arises.

noleisthebest wrote:

hawkeye wrote:Good grief! Can't noleisthebest and Tenez start their own article entitled "How Nadal is ruining tennis and 100 other things I don't like about him"...

I'm sure they enjoy their back and forth character assasination but it gets a bit tedious to have to see it on every thread.

you watch way too much TV ....

So your both ranting on about Nadal on TV too! Is there no escape?

You don't give the casual fan enough credit. If you just tell them, they understand more or less straight away.

Hawkeye a 2 year performance would not solve that because it would be the same but covering a longer period. A ranking is all about CONSISTENCY and in a sport like tennis where anything can happen, a year is good enough to track consistency

I'm not advocating a 2 year system. I'm just not dismissing it because a certain player has had their name attatched to it. Just thinking of times when the annual system throws up surprising changes in fortune.

For example at the AO next year there is a potential huge switch in points. Djokovic is defending 2,000 and Nadal very few. (I've not checked exact figures as just want to show what annual rankings can do). That adds up to a huge points swing of nearly 4,000 points between the two players.

If that was enough to get Nadal back to number one I'm sure there would be a discussion about the fairness of annual ranking points especially here...

Not necessarily as they would both be holders of 2 slams then.

hawkeye wrote:coolpixel

Of course if a player matches a previous years performance he will maintain his own points. But like you say if another player does better than previous year even if its just to win a round he could overtake a player that has won the tournament.

I tried to make it clear that I wasn't disputing that. Its just the way an annual ranking system works. I do think that defending ranking points from a previous year is something the more casual fan doesn't understand because there is always lots of disbelief, explanation and discussion when this situation arises.

All you have to understand is who has been better of the last year.

If not one then why not 10?

1 is good because is incorporates the whole of the tour. One tour, one set of accomplishments, and players ranked by that.

2 is arbitrary - why not 3, 5 or 20?

hawkeye wrote:I'm not advocating a 2 year system. I'm just not dismissing it because a certain player has had their name attatched to it. Just thinking of times when the annual system throws up surprising changes in fortune.

The 'calendar year' is an arbitrary, but well accepted system. It could be 1 year, 2 year, 5 years, lifetime. Imagine, if you won a title, you never have to give up the points during your lifetime.

hawkeye wrote:For example at the AO next year there is a potential huge switch in points. Djokovic is defending 2,000 and Nadal very few. (I've not checked exact figures as just want to show what annual rankings can do). That adds up to a huge points swing of nearly 4,000 points between the two players.

1. Which demands consistency.
2. This has been the case since 1973. 38+ years. Look at this another way, if a company which earns profit does not have to publish a balance sheet, once they made a profit, umpteen years ago. Would you want your bank to behave this way?
3. The players know how to manage points from tourneys, so there are no hidden rules.

hawkeye wrote:If that was enough to get Nadal back to number one I'm sure there would be a discussion about the fairness of annual ranking points especially here...

2010 (Nadal - 3 Slams) was the same way as 2011 (Djokovic - 3 Slams) is. It is fair to Djokovic since he played a very consistent game and was rewarded by the system and became #1.

legendkillar wrote:I think there is one massive point people are overlooking and Nadal himself has too. Who is to say that when a player is injured that when he returns will play at the level that the ranking held justified? Seriously Del Potro didn't look like a World No.5 when he came back, so it stands the reason that that in itself is a doing an injustice to the player protected and also the players below that ranking playing at that level.

It is a good point legend, but I don't think Rafa has overlooked it - that is why he says it is better to come back as 4 or 5 than to come back as 15 or 17 because then you are done (I am paraphrasing a bit here but that was the gist). Now in that statement he is directly acknowledging that players are probably not coming back playing as top tenners straight away. I think that is part of the game, and if the player is going to remain competitive then they will play their way back. To come back with the same ranking is to give a massive advantage in the draws when the player at that time might not merit that advantage and deny players who currently do from those advantages.

The above paraphrase actually points to a fatigue in Nadal atm - why should it be difficult for him to work his way up from No 15 in this hypothetical case. I know that I have been quite anti in this thread, but actually it is Rafa's camp I dislike intensely and I do feel that he is not a free agent but a very 'managed' bundle by his uncle and his father - a view that his autobiography has not disabused me of.

Laver - you are absolutely correct - the current system has rewarded the player of the year and quite rightly so imo.

We should also separate the case of protected ranking (due to injury) from the 2-year rolling ranking.

Injured players do have a protection, for a given period of time (decided by ATP+Player Council).

A two-year ranking for a healthy player (who manages their calendar well ) vs. a similar one-year method yields the same results.

In a 2-year system, the defence of earned points, which is currently tied to an annual event, will also need to be revisited ('HarpoMars' made a similar argument vis-a-vis WTF).

Should their be a pool of and for 'injured' players? IMVHO, the Challenger circuit fulfills that need.

hawkeye wrote:I'm not advocating a 2 year system. I'm just not dismissing it because a certain player has had their name attatched to it. Just thinking of times when the annual system throws up surprising changes in fortune.

For example at the AO next year there is a potential huge switch in points. Djokovic is defending 2,000 and Nadal very few. (I've not checked exact figures as just want to show what annual rankings can do). That adds up to a huge points swing of nearly 4,000 points between the two players.

If that was enough to get Nadal back to number one I'm sure there would be a discussion about the fairness of annual ranking points especially here...

This is an illusion, In fact all that happens is that we take another look at how the players have performed in the last full set of tour results. After the AO we are looking at a new, more contemporary time frame and perhaps different players have performed better. We have more up to date information and potentially revise our view of who is the best player.

Sounds extremely logical to me.

hawkeye wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:

hawkeye wrote:Good grief! Can't noleisthebest and Tenez start their own article entitled "How Nadal is ruining tennis and 100 other things I don't like about him"...

I'm sure they enjoy their back and forth character assasination but it gets a bit tedious to have to see it on every thread.

you watch way too much TV ....

So your both ranting on about Nadal on TV too! Is there no escape?

And one day you might not start a thread slating Andy Murray 100 times over.......

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.