The Rankings Thread (ATP)

[JesuslookslikeBorg]

the Olympic rank points drop off on aug 5th..murray loses 750pts for a start..not sure about the rest, apart from Hewitt will lose 90pts...

so djokoovic will have an even larger points lead at the top after next Mondays rank charts come out.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

They should use a different scheme for Olympic Points as the players
cannot defend it the next year.

25% should come off the first year, 50%, the second year,
75% the third year and 100% the fourth year when they will
be able to participate in the next Olympics.

 

[Moxie]

They should use a different scheme for Olympic Points as the players
cannot defend it the next year.

25% should come off the first year, 50%, the second year,
75% the third year and 100% the fourth year when they will
be able to participate in the next Olympics.

Agreed. This has been debated, but it is what it is. As it stands, it's almost a detriment to do well at the Olympics, since they give points you can't defend for 4 years, which can be a prime window for a tennis player. The other option is to give no points, which I rather agree with.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

They should use a different scheme for Olympic Points as the players
cannot defend it the next year.

25% should come off the first year, 50%, the second year,
75% the third year and 100% the fourth year when they will
be able to participate in the next Olympics.

Agreed. This has been debated, but it is what it is. As it stands, it's almost a detriment to do well at the Olympics, since they give points you can't defend for 4 years, which can be a prime window for a tennis player. The other option is to give no points, which I rather agree with.

I will take no points as the best option.

However, if you are going to give points, IMHO 750 is too low.
It must be at least 1250, little over a Master's event and little less than
WTF.

 

[herios]

They should use a different scheme for Olympic Points as the players
cannot defend it the next year.

25% should come off the first year, 50%, the second year,
75% the third year and 100% the fourth year when they will
be able to participate in the next Olympics.

Agreed. This has been debated, but it is what it is. As it stands, it's almost a detriment to do well at the Olympics, since they give points you can't defend for 4 years, which can be a prime window for a tennis player. The other option is to give no points, which I rather agree with.

I disagree with both of you. The points system whole purpose is to reflect the last 52 rolling weeks. To carry points for an event which happened 2-3 years ago, it violates the definition of the system. And frankly, in 2-3 years the picture can change quite a bit. They could give more points for it, I agree with that, but I think they should remove them once a year went by, like they do.

 

[Moxie]

They should use a different scheme for Olympic Points as the players
cannot defend it the next year.

25% should come off the first year, 50%, the second year,
75% the third year and 100% the fourth year when they will
be able to participate in the next Olympics.

Agreed. This has been debated, but it is what it is. As it stands, it's almost a detriment to do well at the Olympics, since they give points you can't defend for 4 years, which can be a prime window for a tennis player. The other option is to give no points, which I rather agree with.

I disagree with both of you. The points system whole purpose is to reflect the last 52 rolling weeks. To carry points for an event which happened 2-3 years ago, it violates the definition of the system. And frankly, in 2-3 years the picture can change quite a bit. They could give more points for it, I agree with that, but I think they should remove them once a year went by, like they do.

But, by the same token, having points that you CAN'T defend in a 52-week rolling system is rather against the system. And so, awarding more points for it would be even more deleterious. I say give no points for the Olympics. Think of it this way: it doesn't even rank the players in the usual way. (OK, Davis Cup doesn't either, but there's an interior incentive to the game for players to participate in that. And at least players have a chance to defend them annually.) I'd say let the players have the fun of participating in the Olympics, and representing their countries in our sport, but no need to award points. I'd be a monkey's uncle if that were a disincentive to a single player.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Another option would be to keep the points as 1000, but do not play
one ATP 1000 event in the Olympics year. That way, you can take off
the points after an year and at the same time people will have a
chance to defend their points also.

I believe everybody will agree with this option, except of course
the organizers of the Canadian Masters Tournaments.

Actually, they should also agree as any way they take a big
hit on the Olympic years with lots of players dropping out; might
be even better for them financially not to have it once in four years.

 

[herios]

I am seeing the Olympic points differently. It is a bonus for those who do well at that event and gives them a lift which will last one year. What is the big deal that they cannot defend them? They know that very well. Let's keep it simple. You get them, you will keep them for 52 weeks. Did any of the players complained ever they lost their Olympic points?

 

[herios]

Another option would be to keep the points as 1000, but do not play
one ATP 1000 event in the Olympics year. That way, you can take off
the points after an year and at the same time people will have a
chance to defend their points also.

I believe everybody will agree with this option, except of course
the organizers of the Canadian Masters Tournaments.

Actually, they should also agree as any way they take a big
hit on the Olympic years with lots of players dropping out; might
be even better for them financially not to have it once in four years.

Hm, nope, I like it as it is.

 

[britbox]

I'd just leave it as it is otherwise it gets unduly complicated. All the players know at the time that it's a one year bonus that they get to take advantage of.

 

[Moxie]

I'd just leave it as it is otherwise it gets unduly complicated. All the players know at the time that it's a one year bonus that they get to take advantage of.

I agree that everything else gets too complicated. But why award points, at all? It's not an ATP/ITP event. And the incentive is not the points. (Or, clearly, the money, since there is none.) It's a complete anomaly, as to the calendar, so just let them play and have fun, and the rankings and the tennis federation should ignore it, IMO.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

I'd just leave it as it is otherwise it gets unduly complicated. All the players know at the time that it's a one year bonus that they get to take advantage of.

I agree that everything else gets too complicated. But why award points, at all? It's not an ATP/ITP event. And the incentive is not the points. (Or, clearly, the money, since there is none.) It's a complete anomaly, as to the calendar, so just let them play and have fun, and the rankings and the tennis federation should ignore it, IMO.

I agree with you in not having any points. Actually, I believe the
Olympic points were only started fairly recently and players use to
play without points before.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

I think Roger will drop to 6 going into the USO, given that he is
not playing Montreal and he cannot add points in Cincy and
he must lose 450 Olympic points.

Berdych, the guy immediately below him is about 1000 points
below Fed. However, Berdych has only 90+90 points to defend
in Montreal and Cincy. So, it is virtually certain that
Berdych will overtake Fed by the end of Cincy.

It does not disadvantage Fed anymore as far as USO draw
is concerned, but he will be out of Top 5 for the first time
after more than 10 full years and cannot continue the streak.

 

[Didi]

^Well as you already pointed out, it doesn't really matter whether he's seeded 6th or 5th going into NYC as long as he's healthy. I'm much more concerned about his back and I really hope Front242 is right that he skipped Montreal in order to be able to train properly and prepare himself in the best possible way for Cincy and NYC. Because I do fear the prospect and real possibility of Roger withdrawing from the US Open. Whether or not he has a shot at the title is an entirely different matter and not really important to me, I just want to see him in another night session in Ashe as that always provided kind of a magical aura surrounding the whole event. One just doesn't know how much longer we are going to get to see it. One day we will wake up, it's the Men's draw at the US Open and there is no Roger and therefore no longer the magical night sessions to look forward to or to refer to at year's end when we look back at the past season. Let's treasure it while it lasts.

 

[Fiero425]

I'd just leave it as it is otherwise it gets unduly complicated. All the players know at the time that it's a one year bonus that they get to take advantage of.

I agree that everything else gets too complicated. But why award points, at all? It's not an ATP/ITP event. And the incentive is not the points. (Or, clearly, the money, since there is none.) It's a complete anomaly, as to the calendar, so just let them play and have fun, and the rankings and the tennis federation should ignore it, IMO.

I agree with you in not having any points. Actually, I believe the
Olympic points were only started fairly recently and players use to
play without points before.

It definitely wouldn't be fair to carryover these points since not everyone even has a chane to participate in the Olympics! People aren't taking that into consideration it seems!

 

[Moxie]

I'd just leave it as it is otherwise it gets unduly complicated. All the players know at the time that it's a one year bonus that they get to take advantage of.

I agree that everything else gets too complicated. But why award points, at all? It's not an ATP/ITP event. And the incentive is not the points. (Or, clearly, the money, since there is none.) It's a complete anomaly, as to the calendar, so just let them play and have fun, and the rankings and the tennis federation should ignore it, IMO.

I agree with you in not having any points. Actually, I believe the
Olympic points were only started fairly recently and players use to
play without points before.

It definitely wouldn't be fair to carryover these points since not everyone even has a chane to participate in the Olympics! People aren't taking that into consideration it seems!

That's a good point. Which makes that much more argument for not awarding points, at all. Remember that good players in power-house countries don't even get a chance to play, because of player limit, whereas lower-ranked players do, just because their country gets to field a team.

It's a little similar to DC and the YEC, but I would defend awarding points there because they are inter-tennis events, there is still a play-off aspect and you do earn your spot in the event.

 

[herios]

It does not disadvantage Fed anymore as far as USO draw
is concerned, but he will be out of Top 5 for the first time
after more than 10 full years and cannot continue the streak.

If he will be 5 or 6, makes not much of a difference neither in seeding nor in ranking. Dropping out of the top 5 is less significant IMO than the top 4, which was also a decade long run.
For whom this change would be more significant I think would be Tomas, who would join the top 5 for the first time in his career, as he is the only one in the current top 8, who never been there, in the top 5.

 

[herios]

Something significant happens under the radar, with one young players who made some noise earlier this spring.
Pablo Carreno Busta, who surprisingly made the SF in Portugal while ranked outside the top 200, then made the main draw at RG and met Roger in his opener there, kept on playing on clay on the challenger tour.
He has played this week his 7th!!! event since RG, and almost every week kept on inching higher through the rankings, so that today with his win and qualification to the final in Segovia, he will be entering into the top 100 for the first time comes Monday.
So now, he has moved from 654 at the beginning of 2013 to 99 in 7 months. is there anyone who ever did such a climb?

Anyway, Spain adds a fresh face to the clay armada, and I think he will be a true clay courter who will have an impact on the tour pretty soon. He just turned 22 in July.

 

[Moxie]

^ Thanks for highlighting that, herios. He's definitely one to keep an eye on. As to if anyone has made such a climb? If it's a good indication for his future, Rafa made pretty much the same leap between July 03 and Mar 04. You can see his rankings history here. Very similar rise, and not bad footsteps to be following in. (I didn't check anyone else out. Could be others.)

EDIT: I did look back over Djokovic, Murray and Federer. None of them made such a dramatic leap in such a short span of time. They rose more gradually.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

^Well as you already pointed out, it doesn't really matter whether he's seeded 6th or 5th going into NYC as long as he's healthy. I'm much more concerned about his back and I really hope Front242 is right that he skipped Montreal in order to be able to train properly and prepare himself in the best possible way for Cincy and NYC. Because I do fear the prospect and real possibility of Roger withdrawing from the US Open. Whether or not he has a shot at the title is an entirely different matter and not really important to me, I just want to see him in another night session in Ashe as that always provided kind of a magical aura surrounding the whole event. One just doesn't know how much longer we are going to get to see it. One day we will wake up, it's the Men's draw at the US Open and there is no Roger and therefore no longer the magical night sessions to look forward to or to refer to at year's end when we look back at the past season. Let's treasure it while it lasts.

Roger better play in USO and I think he will. There is another record
at stake here. If he plays USO, he would tie the record for most consecutive
appearances in Grand Slam Events.