How Tricky Is It To Miss 7 Months And Have A Ranking Of 5?

Nadal has slid in the rankings to 5 after missing 7 months. It's quite impressive that he hasn't slipped further. Just for fun I thought I'd check how far Federer, Djokovic and Murray would have slipped if they had been unable to play for the same period of time.

To do this I've taken each of their rankings post Wimbledon 2012 (when Nadal stopped playing). Then subtracted any points earned post Wimbledon 2011 - Monte Carlo 2012 as these points would have dropped off. Then added in any points earned after the AO 2013 (When Nadal resumed play)

Federer. 11,075 - 6854 + 450 = 4671

Djokovic. 11,000 - 7701 + 952 = 4215

Murray. 7460 - 5551 + 1180 = 3089

Nadal with 6385 points is doing rather well in comparison.

Here is the present top ten so you can see were they would fit in.

1 Djokovic, Novak (SRB) 12,500
2 Murray, Andy (GBR) 8,750
3 Federer, Roger (SUI) 8,670
4 Ferrer, David (ESP) 6,970
5 Nadal, Rafael (ESP) 6,385
6 Berdych, Tomas (CZE) 5,015
7 Del Potro, Juan Martin (ARG) 4,750
8 Tsonga, Jo-Wilfried (FRA) 3,695
9 Gasquet, Richard (FRA) 3,230
10 Tipsarevic, Janko (SRB) 3,000

What does it say about the strength of the field that all 4 would remain in the top ten even if they missed 7 months?

Could you re-run your numbers as if Rafa's 7 months had included the clay season?

You're forgetting that he was relatively 'lucky' in that his off time encompassed the period where he does less successfully.

Your point on the field is correct.

Yes, he hasn't missed the crucial clay season.
Also, don't forget he's won nearly 2000 pts in the space of 4-5 weeks of coming back. 2000 pts alone makes you a top 17 player...so even had he started from scratch from end of Feb he'd probably be pushing top10 already by end of this week. Talent is talent with any of these guys. We saw Agassi go from 141 to 1 in the space of a year.

I would expect any of the top 4 to shoot back up from an extended period out, and yes that is also because the field around them isn't that a strong challenge.

You can't really draw any conclusions about the strength of the field from the numbers, only conclusions about how dominant those 4 players are. (To draw conclusion about the rest of the field, you have to go beyond the numbers & watch their matches). The dominance is impressive nevertheless.

Some other points:
- "Nadal with 6970 points is doing rather well in comparison" - um, you have him listed as 6385.
- Of course, Monte Carlo to Roland Garros is when you'd expect to Rafa to gather the most points - if the seven months he'd missed included that period, he'd possibly be lower than 5. He might well not be, of course, as he might, for once, have been fresh in the Asian & indoor swings.
- If Fed, Djokovic or Murray had missed the AO, their Feb & March schedules might have been different - they could have played more indoor & HC tournaments and gained as many points as Rafa did on the clay of Latin America.

bogbrush wrote:Could you re-run your numbers as if Rafa's 7 months had included the clay season?

You're forgetting that he was relatively 'lucky' in that his off time encompassed the period where he does less successfully.

Your point on the field is correct.

Injury happens when injury happens it is never "lucky". Nadal lost finalist points from both the US and Australian Open because of the lay off. Depending on how harsh you want to be in judgement there is also an argument for him losing finalist points at Wimbledon too. So it's not like he's incapable of picking up big points off clay.

Well spotted YvonneT I will correct it.

Maybe Murray could have played more post AO but Federer did play Rotterdam and Dubai and Djokovic played Dubai and two ties of the Davis Cup (one in Belgium and one in the USA). Not really much room to play more and if they did I don't think the small potential point gain would make much difference. For different reasons having watched Nadal in Acapulco I do think one year Djokovic should play there. I think he would love the atmosphere and would look good wearing that hat if he managed to win...

There was some good fortune in that his injury came after a 56 day period in which he could (and did) win 5,500 ranking points.

This sort of total in any era would give a solid top ten ranking, so it's perhaps not as big an indictment on the rest of the tour as it seems on face value.

It will actually be interesting to see if he remains at 5 for the clay swing as he has no scope to gain any points, having swept the board last year.

Of course, once we get to Wimbledon, the only was is up!

he had an early loss in madrid remember HM

If there is such a thing as a lucky time (perhaps fortuitous is a better word) to have an injury, then this was surely it for Rafa - at least as far as his ranking is concerned.

In all the years he has been playing on the full tour, I reckon you could count on the fingers of one hand the total number of a) titles he has won in the post-Wimbledon part of the season OR b) the finals he has reached post-Wimbledon. And considering he has amassed a very impressive 50 + titles to date, the 'balance' of his calendar is pretty skewed.

It means that in almost all his playing years Rafa tends to have far fewer points to defend post-Wimbledon than his main rivals.

LuvSports! wrote:he had an early loss in madrid remember HM

Ah, of course, the infamous blue clay! How did I forget that?!

In that case, I imagine he'll hold his ranking at least until RG. I expect him to hold it for that too but even a runner up spot is a fairly hefty points loss when you are defending a win.

But any points loss there will likely be made up at Wimbledon.

The fact they would all still be top 10 is a positive statement about the ranking points in tennis. Points are heavily weighed in favour of winning and making finals of big events. That can hardly be a bad thing. I do not consider that tells us anything about the strength of the rest of the top 10.

[quote="hawkeye"]

bogbrush wrote:Could you re-run your numbers as if Rafa's 7 months had included the clay season?

You're forgetting that he was relatively 'lucky' in that his off time encompassed the period where he does less successfully.

Your point on the field is correct.

Injury happens when injury happens it is never "lucky". Nadal lost finalist points from both the US and Australian Open because of the lay off. Depending on how harsh you want to be in judgement there is also an argument for him losing finalist points at Wimbledon too. So it's not like he's incapable of picking up big points off clay.

Yeah you wouldn't want to get involved in any hypothetical discussions that paint Nadal in a lesser light. Assumptions based on alternate realities (which you seamlessley switch to in your third sentence without any sense of embarrassment at all) are best saved solely for the purposes of painting Nadal in a brighter light than the already supernova wattage he exudes.

Johnnyjeep

I think you are reading more into BBs comment than is there.

If Nadal had to miss half a season and wanted to minimise his rankings drop, he would definitely choose the half that does not include the clay swing. Yes, he can perform well on the other surfaces, but the foundations of his rankings are always the points he gets in Spring. Historically, his performances in the later part of the season (USO and after) have been compromised by fatigue and chronic injuries.

By the same token, Murray would prefer to miss the first half of the year - OK, he has points from AO and the IW/Miami MS1000 events in there, but then doesn't make much during the clay swing but would be back for Wimbledon / USO and summer / autumn MS1000 events where he has usually done pretty well.

I think Johnyjeep messed up the quote function in his post.

The first paragraph is Hawkeye's from earlier in the thread.

Thanks - makes a bit more sense now

Sorry for the confusion dummy_half. I'm still getting used to some of the boards features! I'll get there!

No worries - we've all either messed up quotes or fallen foul of the swear filter on occasion

Was going to say c0ck up, but it gets changed to man sausage up, which doesn't make much sense.

Talking of rankings, I see that Murray's MC exit now pushes him back to Number 3 behind the Fed (albeit by the smallest of margins).

I would like nothing more than to see a home-grown Brit make it to the very top spot, but it's no accident that the guys who do become Number One (other than those who are there for very brief spells) get there and stay there because of their consistency. I'm just not sure that Murray can produce the necessary level of consistency, and yet these are his prime years.

However in my eyes that does NOT detract from the fact that - even at number 3 - there are only two other guys on planet earth who are better at your chosen profession than you are. Not bad eh