The Rankings Thread (ATP)

[Moxie]

It seems that Soderling is coaching Elias: http://www.atpworldtour.com/en/news/ymer-soderling-2017-feature

 

[El Dude]

Digging deep. Is this the most dead this forum has ever been?

 

[Moxie]

Digging deep. Is this the most dead this forum has ever been?

Do you mean this thread, or the forums in general? This thread is meant to be just rankings. Rafa going back to #1 is a deadening note for the Fed fans in general, of which there is a plethora. Going into the clay season...same reason. Roger's not playing. For the Nadal fans, rather a few are back. I guess it depends on what you're looking for, eh? We had the option to brag on Rafa going back to #1 but didn't go for it. Unlike Roger fans. Which do you prefer?

 

[El Dude]

Haha, always raring for a Fedal skirmish, eh? I was just commenting that the forums are kind of dead of late. I think it is entirely because there are no tournaments going on besides a couple measly ATP 250s. No need to make it about Fedal Wars.

 

[herios]

Haha, always raring for a Fedal skirmish, eh? I was just commenting that the forums are kind of dead of late. I think it is entirely because there are no tournaments going on besides a couple measly ATP 250s. No need to make it about Fedal Wars.

Please, do not pollute this thread with a Fedal war, there are plenty other threads opened for such dispute.

 

[mrzz]

@herios, in fairness to @Moxie, she did not started polluting the thread with Fedal wars. She started it with the Soderling/Ymer piece of news, which belonged to the "ATP News" thread.

 

[Moxie]

@herios, in fairness to @Moxie, she did not started polluting the thread with Fedal wars. She started it with the Soderling/Ymer piece of news, which belonged to the "ATP News" thread.

Thanks, mrzz. I put the Soderling/Ymer there because of the comment above it.

 

[herios]

@herios, in fairness to @Moxie, she did not started polluting the thread with Fedal wars. She started it with the Soderling/Ymer piece of news, which belonged to the "ATP News" thread.

My message was to ElDude
He found a way to annoy me more by calling the two 250 events this week, "measly".

 

[mrzz]

Thanks, mrzz. I put the Soderling/Ymer there because of the comment above it.

My message was to ElDude
He found a way to annoy me more by calling the two 250 events this week, "measly".

See? If you dig enough you always find the culprit. These people have no respect for threads, they just keep day-dreaming!

 

[El Dude]

Lease, do not pollute this thread with a Fedal war, there are plenty other threads opened for such dispute.

Umm, I wasn't starting a Fedal War - I was merely commenting on dear Moxie's penchant for bringing everything back to the Fedal War.

 

[Horsa]

Haha, always raring for a Fedal skirmish, eh? I was just commenting that the forums are kind of dead of late. I think it is entirely because there are no tournaments going on besides a couple measly ATP 250s. No need to make it about Fedal Wars.

I think people are busier & people are just getting over the slanging matches. I've personally got lots of ideas which require me to do a lot of writing at the minute & I'm busy doing other things too. I have no problems having civilised & interesting chats if that's what people want. I will warn people though. I can be very chatty.

 

[Federberg]

not sure if everyone's seen this?

http://www.espn.com/tennis/story/_/id/23027866/a-look-possible-new-streamlined-tennis-ranking-system

 

[Federberg]

https://myutr.com/

 

[Andy22]

not sure if everyone's seen this?

http://www.espn.com/tennis/story/_/id/23027866/a-look-possible-new-streamlined-tennis-ranking-system

cool, but that's the difference? And the current system seems good to me

 

[Federberg]

cool, but that's the difference? And the current system seems good to me

if you read the article it explains the difference. It seems to be more like an ELO type ranking system. I'm not advocating one over the other, but assigning a higher weight to the quality of your opposition doesn't seem like a bad idea to me

 

[Andy22]

if you read the article it explains the difference. It seems to be more like an ELO type ranking system. I'm not advocating one over the other, but assigning a higher weight to the quality of your opposition doesn't seem like a bad idea to me

Well I read it but that's really weird to base it on that, this should never be used on the ATP, if they care about tennis history.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

not sure if everyone's seen this?

http://www.espn.com/tennis/story/_/id/23027866/a-look-possible-new-streamlined-tennis-ranking-system

This is rating system and is good for that purpose. It is not ranking system.

The rating number assigned to a player such as 8.15 by this system is supposed to indicate the level of skills a player
is expected to possess. The rating number will especially come in handy when you are trying to find another player to
play with and you expect the other player to be somewhat comparable to you.

The USTA has a rating system that goes from 2.0 to 6.0 in increments of 0.5. There is a definition of what
each rating means as well. But, this is somewhat confined to USA only. Further this USTA rating is based on
a person who assesses observing the player's skills and making a subjective determination; it is not dependent
on actual match results.

The UTR makes the rating system dependent on match results and also makes it universal, i.e., all over
the world the same system. This actually helps US universities who often give scholarships to athletes from
abroad. Especially in College Tennis in USA, about 50% if not more of the players are from abroad. The UTR
helps the colleges to evaluate foreign players quickly in comparison with the local players.

I am not so sure that UTR will serve good as rankings and I even doubt that the designers of UTR claim so.
Once, you are professional, it is kind of deemed that all of them have the same basic skill set. i.e., most of them
can execute most of the basic shots reasonably well. For example, in USTA ratings, players usually try to achieve
a rating of 6.0 and then they can think about becoming pro. If you have not achieved a rating of 6.0, it does not
make sense to worry about your possible ranking or even think about becoming pro.

 

[Moxie]

if you read the article it explains the difference. It seems to be more like an ELO type ranking system. I'm not advocating one over the other, but assigning a higher weight to the quality of your opposition doesn't seem like a bad idea to me

I get the point. It addresses a minor complaint from people when there is a major upset. That you only get the points for the round, and not "bonus" for the upset, and beating someone really higher ranked. Example: when Querrey beat Djokovic in the 3rd round of Wimbledon in 2016. He'd get more points than just those assigned to the round...isn't that it?

I guess I can see the benefit to lower-ranked players. But it would make it sort of impossible to track rankings going forward. Which would be a drag for us fans, but how would players make decisions about what they do, as well? Doesn't everything then become a little draw-dependent? Here's an example, that my buddy @Busted likes to cite a lot: Rafa's USO win last year. Not his fault, but he didn't play many top ranked players. Does he getting a lower Q-rating? Does he get fewer than 2000 points for the Major? I'm not sure I like this. As @GameSetAndMath pointed out, above, this works for college/amateur level, when you're looking to play someone of your level. If the pro tour assumes a certain level, I think it's not useful.

 

[mrzz]

Quickly checking their page I could not find the exact formula/algorithm, so I cannot say anything. But it is kind of an unfair discussion when you propose to change one stable, tested method (which greatest problem is that people in general simply not understand it) by one which so fantastic but unfortunately we cannot tell you how it works....

But we can discuss two aspects of it: one, the "trending" thing, which is basically give more weight to recent things. You can do it two ways: by steps or continuously. It seems they do it by steps, they give special attention for the last three months. Ok, it is reasonable. But the same way ATP points drop out, once a tournament becomes more than three months old, it will count differently for the player ranking. In a nutshell, ATP points live for a year and then drop off, those drop off in two phases.

It could be more complicated than that (and better, for those who like to give more weight to recent events). The more recent the event, the larger the weight. The fluctuations would be smaller this way, but it would be quite complex and seem like a black box for most viewers.

The other aspect is to give weight to the ones you play against, which posters above have already talked about. Remember that the ATP already did that in the past, as they gave bonus points based on the ranking of your opponent. If I am not mistaken, they dropped it as people found it too confusing.

Personally I would keep the current rankings without a doubt. Only thing I would change is that detail about Monte Carlo (which is not one of the mandatory MS events) that complicates it further. I would leave it simply as "your best 18 events in the last 365 days". If people want to change a system which can be explained in one line to another which cannot be explained on a full page, it is up to them....

 

[Federberg]

I get the point. It addresses a minor complaint from people when there is a major upset. That you only get the points for the round, and not "bonus" for the upset, and beating someone really higher ranked. Example: when Querrey beat Djokovic in the 3rd round of Wimbledon in 2016. He'd get more points than just those assigned to the round...isn't that it?

I guess I can see the benefit to lower-ranked players. But it would make it sort of impossible to track rankings going forward. Which would be a drag for us fans, but how would players make decisions about what they do, as well? Doesn't everything then become a little draw-dependent? Here's an example, that my buddy @Busted likes to cite a lot: Rafa's USO win last year. Not his fault, but he didn't play many top ranked players. Does he getting a lower Q-rating? Does he get fewer than 2000 points for the Major? I'm not sure I like this. As @GameSetAndMath pointed out, above, this works for college/amateur level, when you're looking to play someone of your level. If the pro tour assumes a certain level, I think it's not useful.

As I said I'm not advocating one over the other. It's an Elo type algorithm clearly which means that one could easily back-calculate ratings all the way back to the start of the open era