Federer "the deservedly" 3rd player....

But he is not! There is a glitch in teh system that takes WTF points away before a full 12 months has passed. Based on Paris 10 to Paris 11 results, Federer should be ranked 3rd.

Not a big deal I agree but just goes to show that ranking is not perfect.

Interesting anomaly !

So what combination of results is required at WTF for him to begin 2012 as third rather than fourth ....?

I think Fed needs to win and Murray lose before the final.

I believe the system takes points away from the previous WTF to synch the ATP ranking with the year to date ranking. Imagine Almagro had won teh WTF last year, he woudl be ranked in the top 8, though not selected to go in WTF cause WTF is about the current year's top 8.

Re the OP - I don't recall what they do in the draw for other events, whether they use rankings including last year's points from the event, if so this is different. However, it does not make a difference between 3&4 because of the nature of the draw as both are drawn after 1&2.

As for Lags72:

At the WTF it is 200 for a RR win, 400 for a SF win, and 500 for winning the final, so:

* The unbeaten winner gets 1,500, a winner who loses one RR gets 1,300, and if a winner had lost two RR's he'd get 1,100 (just possible in theory).

* A losing finalist gets 1,000 if unbeaten during the RR, 800 if his RR is 2-1, and 600 if his RR is 1-2

* A semi-finalist gets nothing in addition to his RR points, which will be 600 if unbeaten or 400 if he loses one RR match, or 200 if he loses two.

Absent 2010 WTF points Murray is on 7,380 and Fed on 6,670.

Therefore:

* If Murray wins only one RR match and does not win a SF (7,580) Fed needs to make the final unbeaten (7,670) or win the entire event unbeaten or not to overhaul him.

* If Murray wins two RR matches and does not win a SF (7,780) Fed needs to win the entire competition to overhaul him, but Fed can do it losing one RR on the way (7,970).

* If Murray wins all his RR matches (7,980) he needs to lose the SF and Fed needs to win unbeaten to overhaul him (8,170).

* If they meet in the SF Federer has to win to have a chance of being No. 3, and whether he can will still depend upon their respective RR results

* The final could not have 3rd/4th at stake because that would require Murray to have lost 2 RR's (7,980) and Federer to win unbeaten (8,170). However, with RR's like that in different groups they'd meet in the SF and 3 & 4 are drawn into different groups.

barrystar - thanks, I'm hugely impressed !

I can just see the TV pundits flagging up this 3rd/4th conundrum but then struggling to work out the answer. I hope you'll be on hand to help them out !

I always thought players kept previous years points until they have had a chance to defend them. In fact I'm sure at Wimbledon Nadal kept his previous years winning points at the start of the tournament. That how he went in seeded 1.

hawkeye wrote:I always thought players kept previous years points until they have had a chance to defend them. In fact I'm sure at Wimbledon Nadal kept his previous years winning points at the start of the tournament. That how he went in seeded 1.

In the current climate a player was bumped from 4th seed to 5th seed by the exclusion of the WTF points could feel a bit sad about it all, but I see that the point is to prevent a player who has had a poor year from qualifying on the back of a huge points haul at the previous seasons WTF, so it does in fact make complete sense.

But Wimbledon seedings haven't always followed rankings ..... have they ...??

Yes but the WTF is an exception cause it is only the top 8 of 2011 which are invited. No points of 2010 are showing up the week before WTF.

I presonally think they should takes the 2010 points off just the week starting WTF, not now. BUt I think it's just for marketing reasons so that the top 8 of 2011 also match the 52weeks ranking.

Tenez wrote:Yes but the WTF is an exception cause it is only the top 8 of 2011 which are invited. No points of 2010 are showing up the week before WTF.

I presonally think they should takes the 2010 points off just the week starting WTF, not now. BUt I think it's just for marketing reasons so that the top 8 of 2011 also match the 52weeks ranking.

I see your point, it's still possible to have the true rankings and notional 'race' in tandem for this week - imagine if cutting it off a week early was responsible for Fed's 285 weeks at No. 1 vs. Sampras's 286?

WTF has always worked like that, it's the top 8 players of the year (to date) who make it, and they obviously have to keep the YTD rankings.

Wimbledon seedings do things a bit differently to other tournaments, in that they take the current (or rolling) rankings, and then add on something like 100% the previous year's grass results, and 75% of points from the year before that. Basically they do this to have a more accurate reflection on grass court rankings, given how very little tennis is played on grass nowadays.

barrystar wrote: imagine if cutting it off a week early was responsible for Fed's 285 weeks at No. 1 vs. Sampras's 286?

Indeed! I woudl be joining demonstration with those at St Paul Cathedral!

Tenez wrote:

barrystar wrote: imagine if cutting it off a week early was responsible for Fed's 285 weeks at No. 1 vs. Sampras's 286?

Indeed! I woudl be joining demonstration with those at St Paul Cathedral!

Hmm - I don't think that they'd make common cause with you somehow.

Tenez

Take my advice and just ignore the rankings as far as Federer is concerned.

Tenez... are you 'continuing' this article... https://www.606v2.com/t17678-ranking-points-are-ridiculous