Nadal Should Be Number One?

by hawkeye Wed Jan 18, 2012 6:29 am

First topic message reminder :

If tennis adopted a 2 year ranking system instead of the present 1 year system this is what the present rankings would be

https://2img.net/h/oi42.tinypic.com/23m397m.jpg

The big difference is that Nadal would be at number 1

by Josiah Maiestas Thu Jan 19, 2012 10:01 am

I think Nadal should be treated the same way as those racists on twitter, observe it, facepalm it, ridicule it, move on. thumbsup

by hawkeye Thu Jan 19, 2012 2:23 pm

Henman Bill wrote:A 2 year ranking system where all points from the last 2 years count equally is not great for me. It means what happened a week or two ago counts the same as what happened 1 year 11 months ago, which for me does not make sense. (You'd also have the odd curiosity of the points to defend at a tournament being from 2 years before.) It also excessively hampers young players meaning they would be ranked and seeded below their true potency.

I have always favoured a system where the points are divided in half on December 31st, and no points ever drop off as such. That way, the current calendar year's points count as 1, and all previous years count as just <1, 0.5 for the year before, 0.25 weight for the year before that (because they have been halved twice), 0.125 for the year before that and so on. It seems the perfect balance between the 2 and 1 year systems and also has the key advantage of removing the annoying points to defend calculations. Ranking projections would be easier to calculate even mid tournament just by adding points.

This system has never been popular when I suggest it, but I suspect that this is just because people are not really giving it fair consideration and are just going with a "don't change it if it isn't broke" approach to support the current system. The only main objection I get is that clay courters would be too highly ranked for Wimbledon and maybe other grass tournaments. That's correct, but it just means Wimbledon would have to use its own seeding as it has in the past so is not a serious objection to the system for me.

Interesting! Has anyone got a calculator to work out what todays top 10 or 20 would look like with this system?

by barrystar Thu Jan 19, 2012 3:58 pm

@Henman Bill - I'm not quite sure what your system is attempting to identify or whether what it will identify is worth knowing.

I like the annual system because it has a pretty good stab at identifying the current form players which is important for seeding to avoid lop-sided tourneys, the period is sufficiently short that injured players can quickly regain enough points to go up the ranking and form players can quickly go up the ranking so that they are given a sensible seeding, and it provides a yearly narrative of who is the best player over the calander year which is consistent with the rythmn of tennis.

Any change would mean that records and comparisons with the past are meaningless, which would be a shame. I agree that the main problem is losing points on a precise date, but in practice it's only on a handful of occasions a year, if that, that a player has an artificially high ranking for too long, or drops unfairly quickly because of the arbitrary cut-off.

Your system may be more scientific in some respects, but I don't really think that what it establishes is sufficiently worthwhile to depart from what we have for all those reasons.

by **laverfan** Thu Jan 19, 2012 4:59 pm

Why not abolish the ranking system and just use the players' years on tour as ranking? Laugh

by amritia3ee Thu Jan 19, 2012 5:04 pm

laverfan wrote:Why not abolish the ranking system and just use the players' years on tour as ranking?

No I don't think thats a good idea.

by Josiah Maiestas Thu Jan 19, 2012 5:09 pm

I'm sure OP would love the 2 year ranking, it allowed a fraud like Wozniacki to take up number 1 ranking, when she's only had a GS runner up to her name!
steam

by amritia3ee Thu Jan 19, 2012 5:11 pm

She's currently number 1 chin

by Josiah Maiestas Thu Jan 19, 2012 5:13 pm

Navratilova would not even lose 5 games to Wozniacki in the 80's.

by amritia3ee Thu Jan 19, 2012 5:15 pm

Yes WTA currently going through weak era, for me.

by **laverfan** Thu Jan 19, 2012 5:17 pm

Can the proponents of the 2-year system articulate why it benefits all players of the ATP/WTA?

by Josiah Maiestas Thu Jan 19, 2012 5:25 pm

laverfan wrote:Can the proponents of the 2-year system articulate why it benefits all players of the ATP/WTA?

Hawkeye is a fan of Nadal and doesn't like the idea of Djokovic being better at the game than him, pretty much?

by hawkeye Thu Jan 19, 2012 5:31 pm

laverfan

Can the proponents of the 1-year system articulate why it benefits all players of the ATP/WTA?

I'm just asking questions...

Josiah Maiestas

Ha ha! Maybe I'm a fan of Djokovic who's a bit worried. Or come to think of it a fan of Murray or Ferrer or any player in the top ten who is a bit worried... It doesn't matter for Federer as he has nothing to worry about.

by **laverfan** Thu Jan 19, 2012 5:47 pm

hawkeye wrote:
Can the proponents of the 1-year system articulate why it benefits all players of the ATP/WTA?

Del Potro - ATP Rank #298 (14 Feb 2011) to ATP #11 (14 Nov 2011) = 9 months.
Nalbandian - ATP Rank #130 (18 Jan 2010) to ATP #19 (31 Jan 2011) = 12 months.
Hewitt - ATP Rank #73 (6 Jun 2011) to ATP #200 (26 Sep 2011) = 3 months.

Individual players based on their playing capabilities can make up rankings within a 12-month reasonable window.

Raonic ATP #152 (17 Jan 2011) to ATP #25 (9 Jan 2012) = 12 months.

Some examples to consider when discussing the 24-month ranking model.

The 52-week rolling ranking has been around since 1973 tracking by ATP (almost 39 years and counting).

It also fits neatly into the annual events, WTF, etc.

by hawkeye Thu Jan 19, 2012 5:59 pm

laverfan

You've shown 4 players and yet the challenge was to demonstrate how a particular system benefits ALL players.

Just because somethings been done for "almost 39 years and counting" doesn't mean it always has to be that way.

The "neat fit" with annual events is seen by some to be a problem and not a good thing.

Just asking questions.

by **laverfan** Thu Jan 19, 2012 6:08 pm

hawkeye wrote:
You've shown 4 players and yet the challenge was to demonstrate how a particular system benefits ALL players.

You missed the Raonic example. Wink

hawkeye wrote:Just because somethings been done for "almost 39 years and counting" doesn't mean it always has to be that way.

Please articulate the benefits of the 24-month system (with examples).

hawkeye wrote:The "neat fit" with annual events is seen by some to be a problem and not a good thing.

Very vague statement. Who (with links, please)?

by hawkeye Thu Jan 19, 2012 6:25 pm

laverfan

I reckon you have very strong feelings about keeping the ranking system as it is. Change is not always bad. There are many that think things can be improved.

The problem with the neat fit and the annual system is that points drop off in the tournament that that they have been won. It looks to many as if players are defending points and not winning them. I don't think I need to provide links as its something that is often talked about (maybe not here on 606v2 as we're all so knowledgable...).

Henman Bill posted some interesting ideas earlier.

by **laverfan** Thu Jan 19, 2012 6:37 pm

hawkeye wrote:I reckon you have very strong feelings about keeping the ranking system as it is. Change is not always bad. There are many that think things can be improved.

No, I do not. Change for the sake of change is not always good either. List what can be improved, general statements like this cannot be debated. Sad

hawkeye wrote:The problem with the neat fit and the annual system is that points drop off in the tournament that that they have been won. It looks to many as if players are defending points and not winning them.

Move the points drop off to the end of that specific tourney and still the 52-week system works. Not a big deal. It still does not require a change in the rolling 52-week system to a 104 week system.

hawkeye wrote:I don't think I need to provide links as its something that is often talked about (maybe not here on 606v2 as we're all so knowledgable...).

Henman Bill posted some interesting ideas earlier.

All ideas are always interesting. The Golf model already has it's detractors. Tiger Woods's ranking is a case in counter-point to the 24-month ranking system.

by **laverfan** Thu Jan 19, 2012 6:42 pm

HB has proposed a weighted decay system to promote the idea of changes in performance over time.

If December 31 is used as a cutoff, what happens to AO 2011 at AO 2012? Erm

Edit: ... and tourneys which are in November like Paris (1000 points), WTF (1500 points).

For example, Paris 2011 (1000 points - 13 Nov 2011) becomes 500 points on 1 Jan 2012.
WTF (1500 points - 12 Dec 2011) becomes 750 points on 1 Jan 2012.
Completely strange. Erm

by Tenez Thu Jan 19, 2012 7:01 pm

There is a wisdom saying is French : Le mieux est l'ennemi du bien

It could be translated as "Better is the ennemy of good".

The ATP ranking system is good.

by bogbrush Thu Jan 19, 2012 9:28 pm

I'm still struggling to understand what relevance the Australian Open win Fed had in 2010 has on evaluating who the best player is now.

It's just stupid.

by Sponsored content

Nadal Should Be Number One?

Nadal Should Be Number One?

Re: Nadal Should Be Number One?

Re: Nadal Should Be Number One?

Re: Nadal Should Be Number One?

Re: Nadal Should Be Number One?

Re: Nadal Should Be Number One?

Re: Nadal Should Be Number One?

Re: Nadal Should Be Number One?

Re: Nadal Should Be Number One?

Re: Nadal Should Be Number One?

Re: Nadal Should Be Number One?

Re: Nadal Should Be Number One?

Re: Nadal Should Be Number One?

Re: Nadal Should Be Number One?

Re: Nadal Should Be Number One?

Re: Nadal Should Be Number One?

Re: Nadal Should Be Number One?

Re: Nadal Should Be Number One?

Re: Nadal Should Be Number One?

Re: Nadal Should Be Number One?

Re: Nadal Should Be Number One?

Re: Nadal Should Be Number One?