Federer believes players who don't win a Grand Slam shouldn't reach number 1 in rankings... but not for himself ?

by It Must Be Love Mon 3 Nov 2014 - 15:02

Using my dark Nadal fan powers I've managed to dig out an article on Federer commenting on Jankovic reaching number 1 a few years ago. Basically Jankovic reached number 1, Federer was very unflattering on Jankovic reaching world number 1 without winning a slam and questioned the WTA ranking system, and Jankovic got angry at Federer's comments.
Article covering that here:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/02/10/us-tennis-jankovic-interview-sb-idUSTRE5193KA20090210

So that was a few years ago... but now Federer has not made similar comments in the past month or so when he himself was chasing the number 1 ranking, instead saying how important the ranking was.

So, what does this make Federer ?

by Silver Mon 3 Nov 2014 - 15:15

Fully agree, his comments leave him looking hypocritical now. Although the rankings system is a good one, I personally would've been disappointed to see Novak edged out by a player who hasn't won a slam, irrespective of who it is. It's good that he's pretty much got it sewn up now.

That being said...

It Must Be Love wrote:Hi everyone,
Just had some complaints coming in that Federer fans haven't been getting angry enough on their daily visits to this forum recently, and I want to apologise. I've heard many need the therapeutic impact of screaming 'F*** you Amritia' at their computer screen once in a while, and the lack of this is totally my responsibility. Apologies again.

Really? Deliberately trying to incite people is poor form. I'd expect better from you.

by It Must Be Love Mon 3 Nov 2014 - 15:25

Silver wrote:
Really? Deliberately trying to incite people is poor form. I'd expect better from you.

No, no; that was a light hearted joke, I was not being serious. I was mocking myself, like a parody of what my stereotype would be.

Silver wrote:Fully agree, his comments leave him looking hypocritical now.

Maybe so, but I think we need to take a closer look between the ATP and WTA rankings. I don't follow the WTA rankings in depth, but if it's easier to get to number 1 without a slam in the WTA tour then he has a point... if not, then you could definitely argue this is double standards.

Silver wrote:Although the rankings system is a good one, I personally would've been disappointed to see Novak edged out by a player who hasn't won a slam, irrespective of who it is. It's good that he's pretty much got it sewn up now.

The ranking system point is an interesting one, and I would support keeping it as it is; but for reasons people wouldn't think.
I don't think it actually provides an accurate representation between the value of a Slam and Masters 1000. The points for winning a slam is 2000, but 1000 for Masters 1000. In reality, a player would much prefer to win a slam than 2 Masters 1000- well most players would anyway.
However what the ranking system does do in the way it's formulated, is that by giving extra value to Masters 1000 tournaments, they are giving more incentive for players to play there. This way, players play more big events more consistently throughout the year, which surely can't be a bad thing ?

by HM Murdock Mon 3 Nov 2014 - 15:31

Ha! I'd forgotten about that quote.

In fairness to Federer, I suspect if he does take the number 1 spot, he'd readily acknowledge that there's still a strong argument that Novak had the better season.

But yes, it's the kind of comment that can come back to bite a player.

(It was interesting to be reminded of his comments about Novak too. It's easy to forget how frosty that relationship used to be.)

by super_realist Mon 3 Nov 2014 - 15:31

Compared to Golf rankings the Tennis rankings are a dream.

by banbrotam Mon 3 Nov 2014 - 15:38

It's Roger. He's allowed to say what he wants and no forum anti-fan is going to argue. OK? Wink

by Jahu Mon 3 Nov 2014 - 15:41

Of course not.

Fed is the God, talking about him, is pointless.

by hawkeye Mon 3 Nov 2014 - 15:51

Ranking points and their distribution are a very crude way of judging who the best player at any point of time is. Also some of the bitchy things certain male players say about their female counterparts are shocking. I can think of a few bitchy things female players could say about certain male players top of the list being their boring serve dominated games. Are we meant to cheer a speed clock? Zzzzzz. But they are all polite enough to keep quiet about things that don't involve them.

It also makes me laugh the way that Federer can do or say anything but still remains the teachers pet on the tour whereas poor Nadal will have everything he says twisted to make him look like the naughty boy at the back.

by kingraf Mon 3 Nov 2014 - 16:14

It was a fair enough statement from him. Both at the time and now, you'd expect the best player to have at some point one one of the four major championships in the window period. Doesn't always happen though, failure to achieve this. doesn't take anything away from your stint at #1 (unless you're getting bagelled and hammered by Williams in the aforementioned slams).

I laughed at the comments though. Just as well WTA doesn't vote for the Edberg award winner

by **laverfan** Mon 3 Nov 2014 - 16:56

hawkeye wrote:It also makes me laugh the way that Federer can do or say anything but still remains the teachers pet on the tour whereas poor Nadal will have everything he says twisted to make him look like the naughty boy at the back.

Who is the Teacher, HE? Is he like the Master from Dr. Who? (and now the female counterpart Wink

)

Does http://www.si.com/tennis/2012/05/15/rafael-nadal-mailbag sound familiar? Or http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/tennis/9168264/Rafael-Nadal-resigns-as-ATP-players-body-vice-president-after-lack-of-movement-on-changes-to-ranking-system.html .

It is not like he is another Rios, is he?

by **JuliusHMarx** Mon 3 Nov 2014 - 17:15

Federer obviously has too much time on his hands, thinking about things like the whether the (women's) No 1 should have a slam. He should be more humble like the really good players.

by temporary21 Mon 3 Nov 2014 - 20:22

For what its worth it wouldn't feel right somehow if Fed gained number one this year , given he hasnt won a slam, the number one player this year for me is Djoko

Also Lf Doctor who spoilers!! Sad

by **laverfan** Mon 3 Nov 2014 - 21:00

temporary21 wrote:For what its worth it wouldn't feel right somehow if Fed gained number one this year , given he hasnt won a slam, the number one player this year for me is Djoko

And he has played really well.

temporary21 wrote:Also Lf Doctor who spoilers!!

I get it on Sunday via iTunes after it airs on BBCA since I bought a Season Pass. But apologies if you had not already seen it on Saturday. kiss

by It Must Be Love Mon 3 Nov 2014 - 21:48

OK I have checked, and the ranking points in the WTA tour does not seem dramatically different form the points system on the ATP tour (in particular the balance between slams and Masters tournaments).
So yes, unfortunately I think a pretty convincing argument could be made here that Federer was being pretty hypocritical and applying double standards. Sorry

by It Must Be Love Mon 3 Nov 2014 - 21:57

HM Murdoch wrote:Ha! I'd forgotten about that quote.

In fairness to Federer, I suspect if he does take the number 1 spot, he'd readily acknowledge that there's still a strong argument that Novak had the better season.

But yes, it's the kind of comment that can come back to bite a player.

I'm not sure he'd acknowledge Novak had the better season, but that is speculation either way.

HM Murdoch wrote:
(It was interesting to be reminded of his comments about Novak too. It's easy to forget how frosty that relationship used to be.)

Yes, reading that reminded me of the quote too.
I have to say I'm split on this one.
One part of me thinks that it was a nasty and unnecessarily unpleasant thing to say to Djokovic. Heaping more misery on a player who has had to quit because of health problems is not something that I see as a positive thing, infact I see it in a pretty poor light.
But then another side of me thinks; ok it may not have been the nicest thing to say to djokovic, but these sort of feisty interviews can actually add a spark and another dimension to tennis.

by hawkeye Mon 3 Nov 2014 - 22:01

laverfan wrote:Is he like the Master from Dr. Who?

I'm not sure. Is Federer the Master and Nadal Dr. Who or is it the other way round Headscratch

by HM Murdock Mon 3 Nov 2014 - 22:08

It Must Be Love wrote:But then another side of me thinks; ok it may not have been the nicest thing to say to djokovic, but these sort of feisty interviews can actually add a spark and another dimension to tennis.

I'd much rather hear what players really think, than a nice, safe, political answer.

by It Must Be Love Mon 3 Nov 2014 - 22:12

HM Murdoch wrote:
It Must Be Love wrote:But then another side of me thinks; ok it may not have been the nicest thing to say to djokovic, but these sort of feisty interviews can actually add a spark and another dimension to tennis.
I'd much rather hear what players really think, than a nice, safe, political answer.

I do agree with that. But if it was me, what I was really thinking wouldn't be so mean and nasty in the first place.
It's a pity this sort of stuff doesn't happen more often, perhaps in a few generations time players will be looking to Haye and Chisora to look for inspiration in building up hype over a rivalry (hopefully not that far actually lol)

by LuvSports! Mon 3 Nov 2014 - 22:25

No need to be sorry, it is very pot, kettle, black like.
Does anyone know what Jank's year was like back then, in comparison to say Feds this year. I would but shorthand is a killer.

by It Must Be Love Mon 3 Nov 2014 - 22:29

LuvSports! wrote:No need to be sorry, it is very pot, kettle, black like.
Does anyone know what Jank's year was like back then, in comparison to say Feds this year. I would but shorthand is a killer.

Jankovic won 4 titles and reached a Grand Slam final, Federer has won 5 titles and reached a Grand Slam final; not too different.

by LuvSports! Mon 3 Nov 2014 - 22:32

How did Serena do that year?
Did Clijsters win the US that year?
Who else won the slams?
And was that a year end no1 for J?

by Johnyjeep Mon 3 Nov 2014 - 22:33

Hmmmm I am assuming we've all noticed this is not like for like at all. Jankovic has never won a grand slam. I'm pretty sure Roger Federer has. So he's not saying those who do not hold a GS shouldn't be no.1. He's saying that those who've never won a GS should probably not be no.1. Semantics? Probably. Difference? Definitely.

by It Must Be Love Mon 3 Nov 2014 - 22:38

Johnyjeep wrote:Hmmmm I am assuming we've all noticed this is not like for like at all. Jankovic has never won a grand slam. I'm pretty sure Roger Federer has. So he's not saying those who do not hold a GS shouldn't be no.1. He's saying that those who've never won a GS should probably not be no.1. Semantics? Probably. Difference? Definitely.

I'm assuming Federer talking about 'never' winning a Slam is talking about that calendar year.
If he's suggesting that people aren't worth their ranking in the past 12 months because they of something they haven't done before the past 12 months, that's even more unpleasant and nasty... but I think it's fair to give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he's talking about the calendar year the ranking actually applies.

Edit, this is the quote from Reuters which seems to back up what I'm saying:

Last month, former world number one Federer hit out at the way the WTA rankings were calculated, saying a player who has never won a grand slam should not be granted the number one spot.

by It Must Be Love Mon 3 Nov 2014 - 22:38

LuvSports! wrote:How did Serena do that year?
Did Clijsters win the US that year?
Who else won the slams?
And was that a year end no1 for J?

Yes 2008, Jankovic ended the year number 1; not too different from Federer's year this year if you look closely.

by hawkeye Mon 3 Nov 2014 - 22:40

LuvSports! wrote:How did Serena do that year?
Did Clijsters win the US that year?
Who else won the slams?
And was that a year end no1 for J?

Johnyjeep wrote:Hmmmm I am assuming we've all noticed this is not like for like at all. Jankovic has never won a grand slam. I'm pretty sure Roger Federer has. So he's not saying those who do not hold a GS shouldn't be no.1. He's saying that those who've never won a GS should probably not be no.1. Semantics? Probably. Difference? Definitely.

What is Federer made of? Sugar and spice and everything nice that's what Federer is made of. What is Nadal made of? Snips and snails and puppy dogs tails that's what Nadal is made of.

by It Must Be Love Mon 3 Nov 2014 - 22:43

hawkeye wrote:

What is Federer made of? Sugar and spice and everything nice that's what Federer is made of. What is Nadal made of? Snips and snails and puppy dogs tails that's what Nadal is made of.

Disagree with your sentiment here Hawkeye, so far from what I've seen all the Federer fans that have made a decisive judgement on Federer here have been quite fair; both Silver and Luvsports indicating that Federer is using double standards.

by LuvSports! Mon 3 Nov 2014 - 22:44

Cheers Amri.

HE sorry why are you quoting me?
Not sure how you got to that one using my quote of genuine questions.
I would check myself but as I said shorthand is a B.

by Johnyjeep Mon 3 Nov 2014 - 22:46

I think the ranking points are just about right. The points system hasnt been cobbled together by some blokes on the urine in the pub one night. It's a journey that's evolved over 20 odd years.

Purely as a statistical exercise, it ties up. 2 masters you have to win 20 sets over 10 matches. A major. 21 over 7 (i think). To win 2 masters there's a good chance you have face the toughest opponents twice as well rather than just once.

I think it tallies nicely tbh. Yes, its always nice to have a major winner as number 1. But there is no requirement for it. Unless we are seriously suggesting that to be no.1, you would have to hold a major?? What if someone won all masters in a season but not a major??!

by It Must Be Love Mon 3 Nov 2014 - 22:52

Johnyjeep wrote:I think the ranking points are just about right. The points system hasnt been cobbled together by some blokes on the urine in the pub one night. It's a journey that's evolved over 20 odd years.

Purely as a statistical exercise, it ties up. 2 masters you have to win 20 sets over 10 matches. A major. 21 over 7 (i think). To win 2 masters there's a good chance you have face the toughest opponents twice as well rather than just once.

I think it tallies nicely tbh. Yes, its always nice to have a major winner as number 1. But there is no requirement for it. Unless we are seriously suggesting that to be no.1, you would have to hold a major?? What if someone won all masters in a season but not a major??!

If you read my post earlier I did agree with the way the ranking system works. Your reasoning is interesting (counting the number of sets to win), but that's not my reason, I think it's good as it incentivises players to play more Masters tournaments.
Let's be honest though in reality, 99.9% of players would take 1 Slam over 2 Masters, even though it has the same ranking points. But I still agree with the ranking points system.

Also another point I'd like to make is what HM was hinting at earlier, the rankings don't lie (as in they accurately add up the ranking points); but even if let's say Djokovic does lose the number 1 ranking to Federer now as Roger takes the WTF and Davis Cup.. I'd still take Djokovic's season as a whole over Roger's- Djokovic would have still won more Grand Slams and more Masters events. This is down to matter of opinion though, of course some could argue that they prefer Roger's season regardless; and people are free to disagree on this.

by Johnyjeep Mon 3 Nov 2014 - 22:52

It Must Be Love wrote:
Johnyjeep wrote:Hmmmm I am assuming we've all noticed this is not like for like at all. Jankovic has never won a grand slam. I'm pretty sure Roger Federer has. So he's not saying those who do not hold a GS shouldn't be no.1. He's saying that those who've never won a GS should probably not be no.1. Semantics? Probably. Difference? Definitely.
I'm assuming Federer talking about 'never' winning a Slam is talking about that calendar year.
If he's suggesting that people aren't worth their ranking in the past 12 months because they of something they haven't done before the past 12 months, that's even more unpleasant and nasty... but I think it's fair to give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he's talking about the calendar year the ranking actually applies.

Edit, this is the quote from Reuters which seems to back up what I'm saying:
Last month, former world number one Federer hit out at the way the WTA rankings were calculated, saying a player who has never won a grand slam should not be granted the number one spot.

Where's the 'calender year' comment in his quote exactly??!! As its not there, surely we assume that he meant 'never won a grand slam'. As that's what he said. And a) Jankovic has never won a grand slam and b) he did not say 'in that calender year'.

I would say the only way he is backing up what you are saying is if you add some words into his quote which do not exist??! Just so it fits your assumptions

by Johnyjeep Mon 3 Nov 2014 - 22:56

It Must Be Love wrote:
Johnyjeep wrote:I think the ranking points are just about right. The points system hasnt been cobbled together by some blokes on the urine in the pub one night. It's a journey that's evolved over 20 odd years.

Purely as a statistical exercise, it ties up. 2 masters you have to win 20 sets over 10 matches. A major. 21 over 7 (i think). To win 2 masters there's a good chance you have face the toughest opponents twice as well rather than just once.

I think it tallies nicely tbh. Yes, its always nice to have a major winner as number 1. But there is no requirement for it. Unless we are seriously suggesting that to be no.1, you would have to hold a major?? What if someone won all masters in a season but not a major??!

If you read my post earlier I did agree with the way the ranking system works. Your reasoning is interesting (counting the number of sets to win), but that's not my reason, I think it's good as it incentivises players to play more Masters tournaments.
Let's be honest though in reality, 99.9% of players would take 1 Slam over 2 Masters, even though it has the same ranking points. But I still agree with the ranking points system.

Also another point I'd like to make is what HM was hinting at earlier, the rankings don't lie (as in they accurately add up the ranking points); but even if let's say Djokovic does lose the number 1 ranking to Federer now as Roger takes the WTF and Davis Cup.. I'd still take Djokovic's season as a whole over Roger's- Djokovic would have still won more Grand Slams and more Masters events. This is down to matter of opinion though, of course some could argue that they prefer Roger's season regardless; and people are free to disagree on this.

Yes I'd agree. Though I think if he wins Davis Cup, wouldnt swop that for Wimbledon or No.1 ye to be honest. Irrelevant though a Djokovic can't fail to get No.1 now really. Which he's deserved.

by It Must Be Love Mon 3 Nov 2014 - 22:58

Johnyjeep wrote:
Last month, former world number one Federer hit out at the way the WTA rankings were calculated, saying a player who has never won a grand slam should not be granted the number one spot.
Where's the 'calender year' comment in his quote exactly??!! As its not there, surely we assume that he meant 'never won a grand slam'. As that's what he said. And a) Jankovic has never won a grand slam and b) he did not say 'in that calender year'.

I would say the only way he is backing up what you are saying is if you add some words into his quote which do not exist??! Just so it fits your assumptions

He didn't say 'calendar year', nor did I claim he did. No need to get angry over a claim I did not make.
However he is either talking about 'never won a Grand Slam' in a career, or 'never won a Grand Slam' in the specific calendar year. As the context is him talking about how the 'WTA rankings were calculated', I think it's fair to assume he's talking about that specific calendar year the rankings are formulated over.

If you're right, and he was saying a player who has never won a Grand Slam in their career should not be number 1, and he wasn't saying that for someone who has simply not won a Grand Slam in that year; that to me is just pretty mean and unnecessarily unpleasant. Why should someone not be granted number 1 spot if they haven't won a Slam overall, while someone who hasn't won a slam the past 12 months (during which the rankings are calculated) should be granted the number one spot. Why should what you've done or not done before the past 12 months have anything to do with your ranking ?
If your interpretation is correct, frankly that is even more warped thinking and lowers my view of Federer's comments even further.

by **JuliusHMarx** Tue 4 Nov 2014 - 0:37

He is certainly a nasty piece of work Federer - mean, unpleasant, warped thinking and all.
Not at all like other players Jankovic mentions.

by Jahu Tue 4 Nov 2014 - 6:40

Nobody should get emotional what a senile person says.

by HM Murdock Tue 4 Nov 2014 - 8:58

I think the rankings system is pretty good but I think too much emphasis can be put on it.

It doesn't say who is the best, it says who has accumulated the most points.

David Ferrer for instance (currently #10) has 400 more ranking points than Dimitrov (#11). But he has played 4 more tournaments to accumulate those points.

The sense I get from Federer's recent comments on the subject of ranking is that he's more worried about the practicalities of where a ranking places him a draw. So there's not a huge difference between 1-4 as you meet the top players in the SF for all those rankings. But if you drop below that, it becomes a problem because, as Andy has experienced this year, you meet the top players earlier.

But I've gone a little off topic!

by lags72 Tue 4 Nov 2014 - 9:05

Although you had to dig deep to remind us of comments dating back almost six years, it was clearly well worth trawling the archives IMBL.

Not only does the piece give you chance to put your own familiar biased perspective on things, but Jankovic does everything possible to further your cause, by slagging off Federer whilst helpfully heaping undiluted praise on the 100% perfect Nadal. That has to be your dream combination - and all neatly wrapped up in one media article. Bet you could barely believe your luck when you found it ....... Wink

Oh you're so right Jelena (and IMBL of course). Why can't that 'orrible Federer guy be as nice as the oh-so-humble Rafa :

"I mean, one thing I like about Nadal is that he is such a great champion, he is so humble, always has kind words for everybody, he is a role model for everybody," said Jankovic.

(actually, Jelena, I think that's four things, not one .....but don't worry .....we get the message .....)

by Jahu Tue 4 Nov 2014 - 9:06

Did she have a crush on Nadal?

by Johnyjeep Tue 4 Nov 2014 - 9:17

aaannnnd sigh.

So an obscure comment made by Federer 5 years ago has been dug out to prove he is either a hypocrite or a "pretty mean, unnecessarily pleasant and warped thinking" individual based on very recent events. Sometimes I wonder if English is your first language!!

At the same time this throw away story (from half a decade ago) paints Nadal as a saint.

As for the article...is Federer a hypocrite? Yes! Of course he is. Why? Because everyone is a hypocrite if they live long enough. Unless of course we all act and think like we did when we were children, teenagers or young single care free adults!! Peoples views and perspectives change as their circumstances change throughout life. This can be in an individuals personal or professional life.

Federer is no saint. No professional sportsman ever was (apart maybe from Gary Linekar - though even he took the mick out of Steve Bull's accent within the squad at the 1990 World Cup; tut tut).

His performance once in trying to get a match halted when Andy Murray was stuffing him many years ago (I think it was in Shanghai), when a single rain drop fell approximately 150 miles away so the roof could be closed, was pretty dreadful and embarrassing.

But, and this might be difficult for you to comprehend, every player on tour has acting in selfish and ordinary ways at times. No matter how 'humble' they appear to be.

To keep things relevent, does anyone know how many times on the mens tour someone has finished YE no.1 without having won a slam (either ever or in the same calender year?). I don't know the answer by the way!

by Johnyjeep Tue 4 Nov 2014 - 9:19

lags72 wrote:Although you had to dig deep to remind us of comments dating back almost six years, it was clearly well worth trawling the archives IMBL.

Not only does the piece give you chance to put your own familiar biased perspective on things, but Jankovic does everything possible to further your cause, by slagging off Federer whilst helpfully heaping undiluted praise on the 100% perfect Nadal. That has to be your dream combination - and all neatly wrapped up in one media article. Bet you could barely believe your luck when you found it .......

Oh you're so right Jelena (and IMBL of course). Why can't that 'orrible Federer guy be as nice as the oh-so-humble Rafa :

"I mean, one thing I like about Nadal is that he is such a great champion, he is so humble, always has kind words for everybody, he is a role model for everybody," said Jankovic.

(actually, Jelena, I think that's four things, not one .....but don't worry .....we get the message .....)

haha much better than my post! thumbsup

by **JuliusHMarx** Tue 4 Nov 2014 - 9:24

JJ* re: YE No 1. Pretty sure never. Rios and Sampras were in a race for it at one point. Sampras even entered extra tournament(s) to get it, but then Rios dropped out injured anyway at the end of the year.

* JJ = Jonnyjeep, not Jelena Jankovic.

by Johnyjeep Tue 4 Nov 2014 - 9:26

HM Murdoch wrote:I think the rankings system is pretty good but I think too much emphasis can be put on it.

It doesn't say who is the best, it says who has accumulated the most points.

David Ferrer for instance (currently #10) has 400 more ranking points than Dimitrov (#11). But he has played 4 more tournaments to accumulate those points.

The sense I get from Federer's recent comments on the subject of ranking is that he's more worried about the practicalities of where a ranking places him a draw. So there's not a huge difference between 1-4 as you meet the top players in the SF for all those rankings. But if you drop below that, it becomes a problem because, as Andy has experienced this year, you meet the top players earlier.

But I've gone a little off topic!

HMM, I thought the rankings were calculated on your best 18 or 19 tournaments? But this has to includes the Majors, Masters and a number of other smaller events? Therefore the amount of tournaments you play is irrelevant? Unless of course you don't play enough tournaments (18 or 19) in the year?

by Johnyjeep Tue 4 Nov 2014 - 9:28

JuliusHMarx wrote:JJ* re: YE No 1. Pretty sure never. Rios and Sampras were in a race for it at one point. Sampras even entered extra tournament(s) to get it, but then Rios dropped out injured anyway at the end of the year.

* JJ = Jonnyjeep, not Jelena Jankovic.

haha Thanks JHM.

by HM Murdock Tue 4 Nov 2014 - 9:47

Johnyjeep wrote:HMM, I thought the rankings were calculated on your best 18 or 19 tournaments? But this has to includes the Majors, Masters and a number of other smaller events? Therefore the amount of tournaments you play is irrelevant? Unless of course you don't play enough tournaments (18 or 19) in the year?

Yes, sorry, poorly explained.

If a players only plays the mandatory 4 slams, 8 masters and 6 others, one bad tournament will cost them. Playing lots of tournaments gives them other chances to boost the total points in their 6 others.

So a player might not make many points at 500 event such with a strong field as China Open but they can head off to Acapulco or Washington to get the same points against much weaker fields.

David Ferrer playing Bastad and Hamburg (clay events) between Wimbledon and Canada would suggest he's chasing points and prize money rather than good form for the top events.

None of which I have a problem with, it's just an example of how the rankings system is not really comparing like with like.

I've just noticed however, that the race lists Djokovic has having played 17 tournaments but he's only played 14 tournaments. Is something being added somewhere? I'm confused.

by **JuliusHMarx** Tue 4 Nov 2014 - 9:51

HM Murdoch wrote:I've just noticed however, that the race lists Djokovic has having played 17 tournaments but he's only played 14 tournaments. Is something being added somewhere? I'm confused.

Yeah, it is confusing. I think that some tournaments count even if you don't play them - so Djoko would have 3 tournaments that he didn't play and thus got 0 points for. Not sure though.

Edit - Djoko's 17 include Davis Cup (the 15th tournament he played) and Madrid & Basel (which he didn't play)

by HM Murdock Tue 4 Nov 2014 - 10:08

JuliusHMarx wrote:
HM Murdoch wrote:I've just noticed however, that the race lists Djokovic has having played 17 tournaments but he's only played 14 tournaments. Is something being added somewhere? I'm confused.

Yeah, it is confusing. I think that some tournaments count even if you don't play them - so Djoko would have 3 tournaments that he didn't play and thus got 0 points for. Not sure though.

Edit - Djoko's 17 include Davis Cup (the 15th tournament he played) and Madrid & Basel (which he didn't play)

Ah, I see. That is odd, as I don't think he was ever even scheduled to play Basel.

Impressive from Djokovic though as his final total will be based on only 16 tournaments, one of which was DC with few points available.

But then I think part of the reason he is able to play so consistently at the big events is that he is not hauling himself around the world and wearing himself out playing lots of events.

by kingraf Tue 4 Nov 2014 - 10:21

I'm not sure really. Less than being a hypocrite (which is expected... I can't think there are too many geniuses in any walk of life who don't think on some level they operate on a different plane to everyone else), the idea sounds plain daft. By that theory, if Agassi came back and played Futures only, he'd be closer to #1 than, say, Nishikori? Sounds a little daft from Federer, and for all his faults, he isn't daft. Does anybody have the original quote?

by HM Murdock Tue 4 Nov 2014 - 10:26

kingraf wrote: Does anybody have the original quote?

"That stupid cow Jankovic thinks she can be number 1 without winning a slam? Women are so stupid, I hate them. I wish she would just crawl under a rock and die. I'm the best. Do you hear me? THE BEST!"

by kingraf Tue 4 Nov 2014 - 10:32

Cheers Murdoch, I suspected it was something along those lines.

by It Must Be Love Tue 4 Nov 2014 - 11:04

HM wrote:The sense I get from Federer's recent comments on the subject of ranking is that he's more worried about the practicalities of where a ranking places him a draw.

A quote from Federer answering fan questions in an interview, saying he thinks world number 1 ranking is more important than slams because:

The feeling of being world number one is unlike any other and I would love to be at the top of the game again

Also Kingraf, it appears likely to me he's talking about never winning a slam in the calendar year itself, although he doesn't specify it either way.

JohnyJeep wrote:Unless of course we all act and think like we did when we were children, teenagers or young single care free adults!! Peoples views and perspectives change as their circumstances change throughout life.

Yes in 2009 he had a really strong direct opinion, which he expressed publicly in the context of Jankovic, but then in 2014 when it's him his perspective changed on this issue somehow.

JohnyJeep wrote:His performance once in trying to get a match halted when Andy Murray was stuffing him many years ago (I think it was in Shanghai), when a single rain drop fell approximately 150 miles away so the roof could be closed, was pretty dreadful and embarrassing.

I think it was three drops actually rather than one (IIRC), but yes I can see why you've come to that judgement.

by HM Murdock Tue 4 Nov 2014 - 11:16

It Must Be Love wrote:A quote from Federer answering fan questions in an interview, saying he thinks world number 1 ranking is more important than slams

He's not saying it's more important than slams.

by Sponsored content