The Rankings Thread (ATP)

[GameSetAndMath]

Moxie, I just read the Tignor article you were referring to.
He makes three points. His first point is the same as one of the
points I mentioned. I don't see the relevance of his second point
to the debate. I don't even understand what he is trying to say
in his third point.

Also, as El Dude mentioned calendar grand slam is considered
more important than a Serena Slam. Similarly, YE #1 is more
important than being #1 at some other point of year.

Now, you might say that you consider both Calendar
Slam and Serena Slam to be equally important. However, that
is not really the case. Serena slam is easier to achieve because
you can start whereever you want. Put in other words, if you
lose AO, you can win FO and still dream that your FO is the
starting of a possible Serena Slam. However, if you are dealing
with Calendar Grand Slam, if you lose AO, you have to basically
wait another full year to begin dreaming about it.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Another way to see the importance of YE#1 is as follows. There are 25 players
who have achieved #1 ranking at some point, where as there are only 16 players
who have achieved #1 YE ranking. This should not come as a surprise as you expect
the second number to be lower than the first number (perhaps even lower than
what it currently is).

Here is my point. Let us take a look at those players who have achieved #1 ranking,
but not YE#1 ranking. They are players like Marcel Rios, Thomas Muster, Juan Carlo
Ferrero, Carols Moya, Marat Safin etc. These are clearly not big stars.

On the other hand almost every one of the 16 players who have achieved
YE#1 ranking are high calibre players; Connors, Borg, McEnroe, Lendl,
Sampras, Agasssi, Fed, Novak, Nadal to name a few. Of course, there are
few exceptions like Andy Roddick (but that is nothing compared to the
long list above).

 

[Didi]

I think year end #1 does have more prestige and significance because you are forever the best player of a respective tennis year. Since an entire tennis season is being held and played during a calendar year unlike many other sports, the one player finishing at the top was the best statistical-, results-, and performance wise during an universally accepted and set calendar period where all players prepared and set themselves goals for with special designed training plans and different approaches for the race.

From now on 2011 will forever be linked with Djokovic, the number combination 2004-2007 is almost as synonymous with Federer as 007 is with James Bond. And 2013 will forever be Nadal's year and all the historical books will say so in decades to come. No one really cares who the world#1 was on the 27th march 2001 even though it's the same achievement since you've been the best over a 52 weeks period.

Still, there is a reason why Rafter, Rios, Muster, Kafelnikov, Moya etc. were ranked #1 at some points without ever finishing as the year end #1. They deserved their moment of fame and were wonderful players but no respective season will ever be linked with their names in any historical context for generations to come. That might sound harsh but sports history is an ugly, mean and unfair place without mercy.

 

[Moxie]

Moxie, I just read the Tignor article you were referring to.
He makes three points. His first point is the same as one of the
points I mentioned. I don't see the relevance of his second point
to the debate. I don't even understand what he is trying to say
in his third point.

Also, as El Dude mentioned calendar grand slam is considered
more important than a Serena Slam. Similarly, YE #1 is more
important than being #1 at some other point of year.

Now, you might say that you consider both Calendar
Slam and Serena Slam to be equally important. However, that
is not really the case. Serena slam is easier to achieve because
you can start whereever you want. Put in other words, if you
lose AO, you can win FO and still dream that your FO is the
starting of a possible Serena Slam. However, if you are dealing
with Calendar Grand Slam, if you lose AO, you have to basically
wait another full year to begin dreaming about it.

I only ever made the point that Tignor made your same point. He just asked the question of significance, as I do. His second point I have no interest in, either, but his 3rd becomes relevant below, and I will address it there.

I think year end #1 does have more prestige and significance because you are forever the best player of a respective tennis year. Since an entire tennis season is being held and played during a calendar year unlike many other sports, the one player finishing at the top was the best statistical-, results-, and performance wise during an universally accepted and set calendar period where all players prepared and set themselves goals for with special designed training plans and different approaches for the race.

From now on 2011 will forever be linked with Djokovic, the number combination 2004-2007 is almost as synonymous with Federer as 007 is with James Bond. And 2013 will forever be Nadal's year and all the historical books will say so in decades to come. No one really cares who the world#1 was on the 27th march 2001 even though it's the same achievement since you've been the best over a 52 weeks period.

Still, there is a reason why Rafter, Rios, Muster, Kafelnikov, Moya etc. were ranked #1 at some points without ever finishing as the year end #1. They deserved their moment of fame and were wonderful players but no respective season will ever be linked with their names in any historical context for generations to come. That might sound harsh but sports history is an ugly, mean and unfair place without mercy.

Tignor's 3rd point was to do with what I bolded above. Tennis is held within a calendar year unlike most sports? Aside from soccer, you can't buy that. Although some cross the calendar year, most have a shorter schedule than tennis, and make a coherent season out of it. And tennis's ranking system is a rolling 52-week, meaning that it never ends.

Nobody has to explain to me why some guys who were briefly #1 didn't make the same impact as guys who were many weeks at #1. I'm only asking if finishing the year at #1 is that big of a deal. Do remember I'm the fan with the guy that just did it.

Let me ask it this way: let's say Djokovic had managed the numbers and finished the year at #1. Clearly that would have meant that Nadal had faded and Djokovic had gotten very strong at the end of the year, but would that have changed the fact that the dominant player of the year, in terms of important results was Nadal?

 

[Moxie]

Also, as El Dude mentioned calendar grand slam is considered
more important than a Serena Slam. Similarly, YE #1 is more
important than being #1 at some other point of year.

Now, you might say that you consider both Calendar
Slam and Serena Slam to be equally important. However, that
is not really the case. Serena slam is easier to achieve because
you can start whereever you want. Put in other words, if you
lose AO, you can win FO and still dream that your FO is the
starting of a possible Serena Slam. However, if you are dealing
with Calendar Grand Slam, if you lose AO, you have to basically
wait another full year to begin dreaming about it.

I have always held the Calendar Slam to be of the same importance for the reasons you say, and I have said so. Not sure when that got into the argument.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Also, as El Dude mentioned calendar grand slam is considered
more important than a Serena Slam. Similarly, YE #1 is more
important than being #1 at some other point of year.

Now, you might say that you consider both Calendar
Slam and Serena Slam to be equally important. However, that
is not really the case. Serena slam is easier to achieve because
you can start whereever you want. Put in other words, if you
lose AO, you can win FO and still dream that your FO is the
starting of a possible Serena Slam. However, if you are dealing
with Calendar Grand Slam, if you lose AO, you have to basically
wait another full year to begin dreaming about it.

I have always held the Calendar Slam to be of the same importance for the reasons you say, and I have said so. Not sure when that got into the argument.

What do you mean? You have typed "same importance" and for the same reasons as
mine. I am arguing Calendar Slam has more importance than Serena Slam. How can
my reasoning help you to come up with diametrically opposite conclusion?

 

[Moxie]

Sorry, I meant, "the same importance that you put on it." I agree that the Calendar Slam holds more weight than the "Serena Slam."

TBH, though, that wasn't the point I was interested in discussing, or the topic. I was just answering you on it.

 

[Kieran]

The year-end #1 is important. At the year's end we take stock of everything and this is part of it: who's won what, and who finished top of the league after all is done and dusted.

I disagree with Tignor's use of the word "fluke", when he says there are no longer any fluke number ones. There never were. You can't fluke the series of results that get you to the top. If anything, his remark is more damning of the guys today who can't even muster an MS title between them, let alone a slam final appearance. Guys like Moya and Rafter were good players who played with heart and sincerely believed in their ability to be the best. They entered to win and they got their rewards.

They didn't do the chuckling man cuddles at the net back then. A feller would be more likely to growl after a setback than to offer his belly for tiddles. Connors has remarked on this as a development he has no time for.

But Tignor also makes the point GS&M makes, which is that it's important because the players all want it. Sampras held it all through his prime, and may have taken it again in 1999 but he was injured the day before the US Open and withdrew from all events until Paris. Upside for Pete was that while he was recuperating, he met his future wife...

 

[GameSetAndMath]

How come I never met my future wife? Do you recommend getting injured?

 

[Kieran]

How come I never met my future wife? Do you recommend getting injured?

Absolutely! Women love men who are wounded with a broken heart, for instance!

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Actually, the feat corresponding to Serena Slam in the Rankings World is to be ranked
#1 for 52 weeks in a row. Undoubtedly this is difficult, as this requires a domination of
the field for about 2 years. You need to dominate everyone else and get to #1
(as you need to be #1 to start the feat) and then maintain it for a full 52 weeks
continuously. Let us call this "One full year #1" or OFY#1 for short.

The feat corresponding to Calendar Grand Slam in the Rankings World is to be
ranked #1 for all 52 weeks of a given calendar year. Let us call this
"One full calendar year #1" or OFCY#1 for short. Obviously, this will be even
more difficult. As an aside, in order to even attempt this first of all you should
be the YE #1 for the previous year. (This is where the importance of YE #1 comes
into picture).

Note that in both of the above feats, the player is required to maintain
the #1 ranking CONTINUOUSLY for a period of 52 weeks.

Here is the list of people who have achieved OFCY#1. The number adjacent to the name
tells the number of times they achieved this feat.

Connors --- 3
Federer --- 3
Lendl --- 2
Sampras --- 2
Hewitt --- 1

 

[JesuslookslikeBorg]

with ferrer picking up zero points from his 3 matches there is still a chance for del potro to finish 2013 as world no 3 rank..I think ferrer is about 10 pts ahead of murray,

so it could be 3) jmdp, 4) ferrer, 5) murray..a little side show to think about as this tourney progresses.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

with ferrer picking up zero points from his 3 matches there is still a chance for del potro to finish 2013 as world no 3 rank..I think ferrer is about 10 pts ahead of murray,

so it could be 3) jmdp, 4) ferrer, 5) murray..a little side show to think about as this tourney progresses.

Well, that may happen.

The funny thing is that Rafa was out of top 4 in early part of 2013. Then
Roger got out of top 4. Now, may be it is Andy's turn to get out of top 4.

 

[tennisville]

As we label things as calender years , the end of year no 1 becomes more important as when its all said and done the player who had the best results in that year is gonna get to the top . No ranking anomalies will be present here

Which is why Nadal was a shoe in for the year end no 1 ranking this year , he had the best year by far and this was decided after the US Open final . Novak only stood an outside chance of getting it. Also Sampras finished year end no 1 for 6 straight years , that means for 6 years running he was the best player on the tour clap This is the one record of Sampras that will take a long long time to beat

 

[JesuslookslikeBorg]

How come I never met my future wife? Do you recommend getting injured?

Absolutely! Women love men who are wounded with a broken heart, for instance!

but not too wounded a heart..

too wounded a heart and no-one on the planet wants to know.

 

[JesuslookslikeBorg]

well rafa's year was damaged to his non performance in 50% of the majors.

but he finished no 1 anyway so the rankings wars are over for this year at least.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

At this time Year End Ranks 1 through 5 are set in stone.

1. RN 2. ND 3. DF 4. AM 5. JMDP

Roger, Wawrinka and Berdych need to settle the slots 6,7 and 8 between
themselves.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

The ranking dust has settled.

6. RF 7. TB 8. SW 9. RG 10. JT

Roger finishes with less than one third of points accumulated by Nadal.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

There are two Spanish Men, two Swiss Blokes and two French Guys in top 10.
The other 4 in top 10 are from different countries.

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

I hope the Swiss tennis does not fall into the same black hole that Swedish tennis is in now after the Maestro and The Man call it quits...They do have a couple guys at top 200-300 hundred but I have not seen anything special.