The Rankings Thread (ATP)

[DarthFed]

I said that "Zverev is going to be great but he isn't there yet". Pretty far from unreasonable I'd say. I'm shocked you aren't on me about Thiem, I was more harsh on him mostly because I think he is being overrated by those who are praying for the next big thing to materialize overnight. It won't be him.

 

[Moxie]

I said that "Zverev is going to be great but he isn't there yet". Pretty far from unreasonable I'd say. I'm shocked you aren't on me about Thiem, I was more harsh on him mostly because I think he is being overrated by those who are praying for the next big thing to materialize overnight. It won't be him.

I was only addressing Zverev, who I do put a lot of stock in, but I am sorta with you on Thiem. I think he's overrated in a lot of ways, and if people think he's the next Nadal on clay, that is far from true. He's not even a Coria. He's solid, stolid, and he overplays. In some ways I like Goffin more, (not for clay, I mean, but overall.) He's got a more creative game, though he's not powerful. And I think we've underestimated the injury that he got at RG. He'll come back to be troublesome, I suspect. Dimitrov in the top 10? You know I disparage the guy often, but you don't see him there? I think he already has been.

 

[herios]

I just said he got there because others above him aren't defending points. You act all disgusted by his lack of finishes at Slams. Yes, you were dissing him. Own it. A ranking isn't a trophy. He'll have to justify it eventually. Ferrer has been #3 and so has Davydenko. It's about the points.

Let's be fair. Both Ferrer and Davydenko got to #3 ranking after several SF appearances in slams.
Zverev is a unique situation.
He obviously performed very well on Tour, but not in slams.

 

[Moxie]

Let's be fair. Both Ferrer and Davydenko got to #3 ranking after several SF appearances in slams.
Zverev is a unique situation.
He obviously performed very well on Tour, but not in slams.

Are you sure they got there AFTER "several SF appearances in Slams?" I think you'd have to check. Neither one of them did great in Slams. Ferrer certainly better than Davydenko, but it's a tight argument, given that it's simply about points. Zverev is #4 because he is. I don't know why that's controversial, really.

 

[herios]

Are you sure they got there AFTER "several SF appearances in Slams?" I think you'd have to check. Neither one of them did great in Slams. Ferrer certainly better than Davydenko, but it's a tight argument, given that it's simply about points. Zverev is #4 because he is. I don't know why that's controversial, really.

Honestly I was not sure, but I just checked and was right.

1 Ferrer got to #3 in July 2013 and by that time all his best results were behind him:
Twice AO SF, one F and another SF at the RG and two SF at the USO.
Davydenko got to #3 n November 2006. At that time he had one RG SF in 2005 and one at the USO in 2006.
He then had two more SF in slams in 2007 in the same two slams, so he preserved his #3 for quite some time.

 

[Front242]

Davydenko as much as I liked him was no different than Ferret in that he overplayed all season long to keep his ranking. Both literally played all the big events and all the mickey mouse ones too. Good results to get there initially but then a barrage of nothing events to maintain the ranking points. Ultimately, all the overplaying probably contributed in large part to his career ending injury.

 

[herios]

Davydenko as much as I liked him was no different than Ferret in that he overplayed all season long to keep his ranking. Both literally played all the big events and all the mickey mouse ones too. Good results to get there initially but then a barrage of nothing events to maintain the ranking points. Ultimately, all the overplaying probably contributed in large part to his career ending injury.

The concept that Ferrer and Davydenko played so much to maintain their ranking is false.
Only 18 events counted towards their ranking, so if they played around 25, many of them did not contribute in points.
I am almost sure, what they were chasing was the money.

 

[britbox]

Let's be fair. Both Ferrer and Davydenko got to #3 ranking after several SF appearances in slams.
Zverev is a unique situation.
He obviously performed very well on Tour, but not in slams.

The kid is 20 years old - he's not played many slams so I'm not sure what your perceived trajectory is for him but betting against him is like somebody building a sand castle and hoping the tide doesn't come in.

 

[Federberg]

It takes time to get used to playing slams. He looks on track to me. And personally I rate Thiem a lot more highly than some others. He looks like he's got the attitude and mentality to make serious improvements. He's not a Grigor, and he has weaponry unlike a Ferrer...

 

[herios]

The kid is 20 years old - he's not played many slams so I'm not sure what your perceived trajectory is for him but betting against him is like somebody building a sand castle and hoping the tide doesn't come in.

Did I say anywhere that I am betting against him? Perhaps others did, but not me.
I was just stating the fact that he underperformed in slams on comparison to what he did in the rest of the events.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

The concept that Ferrer and Davydenko played so much to maintain their ranking is false.
Only 18 events counted towards their ranking, so if they played around 25, many of them did not contribute in points.
I am almost sure, what they were chasing was the money.

Yes, only 18 events count, but of them only 12 are mandatory. Meaning if they play 25 events, the ranking system will use the best 6 of the remaining 13 events. So, playing more helps in ranking too. But, most probably money was their primary motivation though.

I can agree with player playing a lot of events before making it into top 12. But, once they become a top player, they should pick and
choose and try to peak for the Slams. If one is not doing that, it basically means they don't even believe in themselves. Ferrer and Davy
belong to this category.

 

[britbox]

Did I say anywhere that I am betting against him? Perhaps others did, but not me.
I was just stating the fact that he underperformed in slams on comparison to what he did in the rest of the events.

I've got him roughly in line with his ranking at the time, give or take.

Exceeded Ranking: 2
Met Ranking: 5
Fell Short: 3

2015:
Wimbledon: 2R (Last 64) Ranking: 74 - Exceeded Ranking
US Open: 1R (128) Ranking: 82 - Met Ranking

2016:
Australian Open: 1R (128) Ranking: 83 - Met Ranking
French Open: 3R (32) Ranking: 48 - Exceeded Ranking
Wimbledon: 3R (32) Ranking: 28 - Met Ranking
US Open: 2R (64) Ranking: 28 - Fell Short of Ranking

2017:
Australian Open: 3R (32) Ranking: 24 - Met Ranking
French Open: 1R (128) Ranking: 10 - Fell Short of Ranking
Wimbledon: 4R (16) Ranking: - Met Ranking
US Open: 2R (64) Ranking: - Fell Short of Ranking

 

[Jelenafan]

Tommy Haas reached #2 in the rankings on May 2002 with 1 SF AO appearance earlier that year , prior to that Tommy had gone 11 straight Majors with nothing better than a 4th round appearance.

 

[El Dude]

Zverev is the only young player that I feel confident will eventually both win Slams (and not just one) AND be #1. Shapovalov is almost there, but I want to see a bit more.

This is not to say that other "next genners" won't win Slams and/or be #1, but those are the two I feel most confident about, and Zverev is the only one who I would be surprised if he didn't win multiple Slams and be #1.

 

[Moxie]

Definitely agree on Zverev. A lot has happened to him pretty fast, which is why I was defending him. It may be an "artificial" #4 because of all the guys ahead of him who have shut down the year, but that's not his fault. I'm sure he'll back it up. Shapo is still very young, (though so was Nadal,) and we have to see how he'll take to the attention, etc. But, ironically, one thing perhaps in his favor of not getting too up himself could be the Davis Cup incident last Spring. I think that was humbling and embarrassing for him, and a bit of an early lesson that his shit can indeed stink.

 

[britbox]

Zverev is the only young player that I feel confident will eventually both win Slams (and not just one) AND be #1. Shapovalov is almost there, but I want to see a bit more.

This is not to say that other "next genners" won't win Slams and/or be #1, but those are the two I feel most confident about, and Zverev is the only one who I would be surprised if he didn't win multiple Slams and be #1.

I'm with you on Zverev - would be shocked if he didn't. I'm expecting Thiem to join the club at some point. Not sure about the rest, but will be interesting to see who emerges.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

ElDude has done a lot of studies based on player's age. Now, let me tell you something based on player's height.

From 1985 to 2017, of all the slams played only three were won by players 6'5" or taller (JMDP, Cilic and Krajicek).
That is three slams out of about 132 slams, leading to about 2.2% share. Zverev is 6'6".

Obviously taller guys have advantage in serve and in creating better angles. But, they also have several disadvantages.
They have trouble with movement. They have trouble with filling up and becoming stronger. They have trouble with
bending down for low balls. It remains to be seen as to whether these disadvantages can hold AZ back.

Hence, I don't think Zverev will become a multislam winner (say 3+ or better).

Also, while Sasha does everything fine, there is nothing that particularly stands out as his unique ability.
He is more or less like a generic basline player produced from a tennis player factory.

 

[Jelenafan]

Denis Shapovalov height is listed at 6'-0".

I think of the top veteran players, only Wawrinka is that short.

Thinking that is the minimum height to become a multiple Slam winner these days..

 

[Moxie]

ElDude has done a lot of studies based on player's age. Now, let me tell you something based on player's height.

From 1985 to 2017, of all the slams played only three were won by players 6'5" or taller (JMDP, Cilic and Krajicek).
That is three slams out of about 132 slams, leading to about 2.2% share. Zverev is 6'6".

Obviously taller guys have advantage in serve and in creating better angles. But, they also have several disadvantages.
They have trouble with movement. They have trouble with filling up and becoming stronger. They have trouble with
bending down on low balls. It remains to be seen as to whether these disadvantages can hold AZ back.

Hence, I don't think Zverev will become a multislam winner (say 3+ or better).

Also, while Sasha does everything fine, there is nothing that particularly stands out as his unique ability.
He is more or less like a generic basline player produced from a tennis player factory.

That's interestingly researched. I get your point about Zverev's height, but players are getting taller, and the one's that move well, like Zverev, do get looked at favorably. Safin is the original poster child for Big Man tennis. He was 6'4"/bordering on 6'5" and he moved really well. Everyone agrees, I think, that he underachieved with 2 Majors. That was his head, not his movement. (And a bit of injuries.) Zverev gets compared to Safin, and I think rightly. He's still light, and not filled out, but he moves so much better than some of the guys you think of who top 6'4". Men's tennis is getting taller, and I don't think his height will be to his detriment.

As to your last, I don't agree that he does nothing special. Serve, obviously, including 2nd, and a terrific 2hBh. He'll get better at the net, especially with his brother's help. As to how many Slams he wins, that's anyone's guess, but we'll all be shocked if he doesn't win any.

 

[El Dude]

I don't see why, as Moxie says, player height couldn't be part of the changing landscape - like changing prime years and longevity. Maybe 6'6" is the new 6'2."

That said, it may be that Zverev's build won't be conducive to being an all-time great (6+ Slams). While I am reasonably confident that he will reach #1 and win multiple Slams, I also wouldn't be surprised if he wins in the 3-5 range, rather than 6+. But a lot depends upon who emerges. Someone like Felix Auger Aliassime could emerge and take the tennis world by storm. I could also see a scenario where "NextGen" has a wide cast of characters winning Slams, a few winning multiple Slams, but none being truly dominant. Who knows.