The Rankings Thread (ATP)

[tented]

I already said how this works out. Assuming one of Fedalovic wins the RG title whoever goes farther at RG between Roger and Ralph would be ranked higher than the other. It looks to be the case that Fedal 39 would happen here and so that match will decide.

Thanks. Somehow I missed your previous post, or simply forgot.

 

[mrzz]

I just want to say that matchpoint is not so relevant in how someone came close to winning.

If you want to say that match point is not the only measure of how someone got close to win a match, I can agree, but exactly what you phrased is an almost perfect contradiction.

Technically, you cannot get closer to winning than with a match point. You could perhaps try to distinguish between different kinds of match point: If you have multiple match points (e.g. serving at 40-0), you have a better statistical chance, but regarding the "distance" to win, all match points are born equal. You can add subjectivity -- are you serving, receiving, how you got to it, etc, or again how many match points you have. You can even analyze the point itself... how it was won or lost. In the case Front mentioned, Rome 2006, it was a matter of inches (maybe half an inch). It really, really cannot get closer than that.

I get that other points may be important, and get you close to winning. But you played tennis, you know: close is not enough. We cannot even say that is unusual that a match is turn around when a guy is serving for it. There are important points, sure, to get a break up in decider, so on and so forth. But a break up can be easily lost. With match point it all goes down to a single ball. If you win it, there are no further "ifs".

Anyway, I agree that 9-7 in the fifth means a helluva competitive match. But getting to match point is still a tad above it.

 

[Fiero425]

This is what I posted here recently which presumably you did not understand despite reading it and commenting on it.

If it was long-winded I probably didn't bother! IT's not like you're going to teach me anything; "the true tennis historian" here! :whistle:

 

[Fiero425]

In live rankings, Fed is #2 at the moment with a 5 point lead over Ralph.

This means whoever goes farther in RG between the two is likely to end up as #2 after RG (assuming RG is won by Fedalovic).

Most likely this will be settled by a direct match between them in SF.

It'll NEVER happen! Please! :whistle: :cuckoo:

 

[GameSetAndMath]

If it was long-winded I probably didn't bother! IT's not like you're going to teach me anything; "the true tennis historian" here! :whistle:

Yep, it had three full lines. No wonder you could not understand it.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

I’ve wondered if part of his strategy/reason for coming to Paris is getting seeded No. 2 for Wimbledon. I’m not good enough at the math to figure it out, but it would be interesting to find out what would be the minimum needed for Roger to overtake Rafa.

Let me give you a complete answer covering all possibilities.

1. If Fedal SF happens, the winner will be ranked higher than the loser.

2. If Fedal SF does not happen, whichever one (Fed or Ralph) goes further in the draw will be ranked higher.

3. If Fedal SF does not happen and both of them lose in the same round, Fed will overtake Ralph.

p.s. In view of 2, there is no need to state 1 explicitly, but is fun to state it explicitly.

 

[don_fabio]

If you want to say that match point is not the only measure of how someone got close to win a match, I can agree, but exactly what you phrased is an almost perfect contradiction.

Technically, you cannot get closer to winning than with a match point. You could perhaps try to distinguish between different kinds of match point: If you have multiple match points (e.g. serving at 40-0), you have a better statistical chance, but regarding the "distance" to win, all match points are born equal. You can add subjectivity -- are you serving, receiving, how you got to it, etc, or again how many match points you have. You can even analyze the point itself... how it was won or lost. In the case Front mentioned, Rome 2006, it was a matter of inches (maybe half an inch). It really, really cannot get closer than that.

I get that other points may be important, and get you close to winning. But you played tennis, you know: close is not enough. We cannot even say that is unusual that a match is turn around when a guy is serving for it. There are important points, sure, to get a break up in decider, so on and so forth. But a break up can be easily lost. With match point it all goes down to a single ball. If you win it, there are no further "ifs".

Anyway, I agree that 9-7 in the fifth means a helluva competitive match. But getting to match point is still a tad above it.

I should have used a different phrase and be more specific as you pointed out. So the ''match point is not the only measure'' explains better in what I was thinking.

I agree with all what you wrote about the matchpoint, it doesn't get any closer than that and that's a fact and all the rest brings 'if', that is true.

I was trying to tell how a momentum shifting key moment can still play a big role in how the match ends, specially when it happens in the decider, somewhere close to the finish line or somewhere where it could give the player a very significant lead in the match. Usually it happens with some ball just missed, but also can be an essy shot missed, some BP not converted or break not confirmed on the serve. It is rare that we have elite guys facing matchpoints and then turning it around, they usually don't let themself in that position. I can remember US Open 2010 Fed vs Novak and 2 MPs and also Fed Nad 08 epic Wimbledon final, Fed facing matchpoints in the 4th, but almost turned it around in the 5th.

More often I see close matches without matchpoints that could end up with different winner. Like Roddick Federer 09 Wimbledon, Roddick having a 6:2 in the 2nd set tie break to go 2:0 up.

Maybe would be interesting to have a thread where we put big matches that we think were decided by a point or 2 or maybe a crucial game or TB, not just this era, but other eras as well like McEnroe Lendl '84 RG. I am sure older guys here can remember more than a few, but again I am not sure was it discussed like this in a single thread. Anyway, I guess we should leave it after the RG or some broing week during the season.

Just wanted to tell that I think the key moments are also important measure in deciding how close the match was and maybe it also points out where the match was kind of lost. It also gives some credit to the loser as well. Just because someone didn't reach the MP it is not fair to discard him of coming close to winning or at least putting himself in a very good position to win the match.

 

[tented]

Let me give you a complete answer covering all possibilities.

1. If Fedal SF happens, the winner will be ranked higher than the loser.

2. If Fedal SF does not happen, whichever one (Fed or Ralph) goes further in the draw will be ranked higher.

3. If Fedal SF does not happen and both of them lose in the same round, Fed will overtake Ralph.

p.s. In view of 2, there is no need to state 1 explicitly, but is fun to state it explicitly.

Thanks for the summary.

 

[tented]

Maybe would be interesting to have a thread where we put big matches that we think were decided by a point or 2 or maybe a crucial game or TB, not just this era, but other eras as well like McEnroe Lendl '84 RG. I am sure older guys here can remember more than a few, but again I am not sure was it discussed like this in a single thread. Anyway, I guess we should leave it after the RG or some broing week during the season.

Great idea for a post-RG thread.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

It'll NEVER happen! Please! :whistle: :cuckoo:

How would you like to eat your crow? Roasted or Boiled.

 

[Fiero425]

How would you like to eat your crow? Roasted or Boiled.

It would be even more unfathomable Fed winning this SF like he did in 2011 over Nole who was on a 40+ match win streak! :whistle:

 

[herios]

New career highs, June 10, 2019:
9. Karen Khachanov 23y
10. Fabio Fognini 32y
13. Daniil Medvedev 23y
21. Felix Auger-Aliassime 18y
27. Laslo Djere 24y
30. Matteo Berrettini 23y
32. Cristian Garin 23y
38. Jan Lenard Struff 29y
58. Juan Ignacio Londero 25y
59. Casper Ruud 20y
85. Alexander Bublik 21y
99. Yannick Maden 29y

 

[GameSetAndMath]

I thought Fog entered top 10 briefly a few weeks ago. Is that not true. Also, #59's names is casper ruud and not Christian ruud.

 

[herios]

I thought Fog entered top 10 briefly a few weeks ago. Is that not true. Also, #59's names is casper ruud and not Christian ruud.

Nope, Fabio posted a career high #11 a few weeks ago, not 10.
Corrected Ruuds' name, thanks

 

[El Dude]

Good to see some of those names keep rising. KK and DM keep creeping up to take on their roles as the future Berdych/Tsonga of the tour.

If FAA is #21 at 18 years and 10 months, how good will he be in a couple years? The kid's the real deal.

Nice also to see Ruud finally establish himself in the top 100, after a year or two of stagnation.

 

[herios]

It is a rare instance when 2 players get into the top 10 for the first time, as it was the case with Karen and Fabio this week.
The difference is one just turned 23 and the other 32.
Obviously, Karen has the chance to go a lot higher in the future, and will be a potential top 5 player by the time he peaks.
Fabio on another hand got here at an age which historically used to be the retirement age, but these days is just what we become to say a "late bloomer".
The "late bloomer" concept was supposed to be an exception, however in the last decade more and more players fit into this category.
Just to mention the very best, who got into the top 10:
Ferrer, Wawrinka, Isner, Anderson and now Fognini.

 

[El Dude]

The rankings continue to be dominated by older (30+) and younger (<25) players, with few in-between. Or to use my old "Generational Theory:"

Top Five Players of Gen Fed (b. 1979-83):
3. Federer (37)
34. Verdasco (35)
51. Kohlschreiber (35)
86. Karlovic (40)
97. Lorenzi (37)

Top Five Players of Gen Nadakovic (b. 1984-88):
1. Djokovic (32)
2. Nadal (33)
8. Anderson (33)
10. Fognini (32)
11. Isner (34)

Top Five Players of Lost Gen (b. 1989-93):
4. Thiem (25)
7. Nishikori (29)
17. Basilashvili (27)
18. Raonic (28)
21. Schwartzman (26)

Top Five Players of Next Gen (b.1994-98):
5. Zverev (22)
6. Tsitsipas (20)
9. Khachanov (23)
13. Medvedev (23)
14. Coric (22)

Top Five Players of Maple Leaf Gen (b. 1999-2003):
21. Auger-Aliassime (18)
24. De Minaur (20)
25. Shapovalov (20)
83. Kecmanovic (19)
102. Moutet (20)

 

[herios]

The rankings continue to be dominated by older (30+) and younger (<25) players, with few in-between. Or to use my old "Generational Theory:"

Top Five Players of Gen Fed (b. 1979-83):
3. Federer (37)
34. Verdasco (35)
51. Kohlschreiber (35)
86. Karlovic (40)
97. Lorenzi (37)

You missed A. Seppi among the Oldies, he is ranked 72 (35)

 

[El Dude]

A couple comments. Next Gen has clearly surpassed Lost Gen - the

You missed A. Seppi among the Oldies, he is ranked 72 (35)

He was born in 1984, though, so technically belongs with Gen Nadalkovic.

 

[herios]

A couple comments. Next Gen has clearly surpassed Lost Gen - the


He was born in 1984, though, so technically belongs with Gen Nadalkovic.

You are right on that one, I should've looked more carefully.

I also missed to mention we had have an older Challenger player Maden from Germany breaking into the top 100 at 29y of age for the first time.