The 2014 Australian Open Tennis Championships (Jan. 13-26) |OT|

Status
Not open for further replies.
BLAZER said:
Federer being at number 8 is a disgrace to be honest. Strange how these rankings work, not a fan of the current system.
Click to expand...

As someone else already said, he can gain a lot of points because of his shit 2013. The only title he has to defend is Halle.

It's up to him
 
Jinto said:
Congrats! Must be nice having world class tennis players coming from your country. Hopefully Milos or Eugenie can pull through soon and we can have a champion of our own.
Click to expand...

it is nice, i like Milos. He should do well, not sure if GS well tho. Eugenie is a future GS winner for sure.


Trokil said:
Hopefully it will not stop for us as well.

With Belinda Bencic we have another hopeful, she already has won the Junior Tournament in Wimbledon and Paris. Maybe she will continue the Swiss tennis history.
Click to expand...

the Federer generation should be coming up soon. (all the kids that started to play since 2003.
 
Wes said:
Pretty emotional speech by Rafa. Hard not to like the guy.
Click to expand...

He's a great champion, in fact all the "The Big 4" are, despite their little quirks and faults. People put these guys up on a pedestal and if they fall just slightly short, be it a snarky comment after a defeat, dubious medical timeouts etc. they get jumped on. They're merely human, not superhuman and are great ambassadors for the game. So glad we have a new champion, because Wawrinka is such a nice, warm guy. Another one that's hard to dislike.
 
Diprosalic said:
they are the most logical rankings you could make. i always wonder why people struggle so much with them.
Click to expand...

No, most logical ranking system would be a seeded Glicko-2 rating which varied by surface.
 
John Dunbar said:
of course he will win the french, but how does these two relate at all? all that jinx is that no one wins ao and rg. only way it would not live on is if wawrinka won the french.
Click to expand...

He's always a lock-on for it, but you never know. His game is susceptible to injury problems and he's not as good on clay courts as he was in his clay court prime a few years back. It's why when people say he'll easily surpass Federer or equal his record, I have to question the evidence for that. He's reaching that age where slams start to get a little hard to come by, and with other guys stepping up and his tendency for his knees to go, it wouldn't surprise me if he stopped on 15-16 slams.
 
TrumanBurbank said:
How the hell is Del Potro no 4 when he has only reached 1 semi final since 2010? Does he win a lot outside Grand slams?
Click to expand...
He has 4 ATP 500 wins to his rankings, 2 MS1000 finals. The difference is only 1400 points between #3 Stan and #8 Roger, the rankings will be fluctuating a lot this year.
 
PedroPanache said:
I guess that sort of questioning is frustrating to people who watch the season outside of the four slams and watch the masters 1000 events etc. Del Potro had a great 2013.
Click to expand...

...except in Slams, which is the most important role the ranking plays for top players anyway.
 
Crab said:
It's true, though. There's a defending slam finalist and a defending slam champion below him.
Click to expand...

I know you're probably playing devil's advocate a little, but the slams aren't the be and end all. If you want to elevate their importance, double their points I guess. However, I think the system we have is pretty good, even though it doesn't count for abilities across different surfaces. Murray had kind of an awfully inconsistent season across the masters series last year.

Crab said:
...except in Slams, which is the most important role the ranking plays for top players anyway.
Click to expand...

Slams are more visible and it's what everyone watches tennis for mainly. However, if you're rubbish across the entire season except for four events, should that level of inconsistency be rewarded because of the importance of the four major events?
 
PedroPanache said:
I know you're probably playing devil's advocate a little, but the slams aren't the be and end all. If you want to elevate their importance, double their points I guess. However, I think the system we have is pretty good, even though it doesn't count for abilities across different surfaces.
Click to expand...
I fully agree. As someone who went to a slam only once in my life (RG2010) but plenty of smaller tournaments, I prefer for stakes to be still worthwhile for the players at those smaller events.
 
PedroPanache said:
I know you're probably playing devil's advocate a little, but the slams aren't the be and end all. If you want to elevate their importance, double their points I guess. However, I think the system we have is pretty good, even though it doesn't count for abilities across different surfaces. Murray had kind of an awfully inconsistent season across the masters series last year.
Click to expand...

I actually really dislike the rankings system, it's pretty bad. The rankings are used to set the seeds for tournaments, and the most important tournaments at a top level are the slams. Therefore, the most important role of the rankings should be to provide accurate seeds for slams, with a secondary role being accurate seeds for majors, 500s, and 250s. The seeds should be an accurate summation of how likely a given player is to win the average match at that tournament. The rankings just don't do that. Del Potro is significantly more likely to lose in an early round of the French Open than Ferrer, as an example. As such, the rankings aren't fulfilling their role.

I'd much prefer a Glicko-2 ranking system, which varied across surfaces and with a per set weighting to adjust for the fact that slams are best of five sets. That would provide an accurate estimation of who is more likely to win the average match on any given surface, and thus provide a more accurate seeding for tournaments.
 
Crab said:
I actually really dislike the rankings system, it's pretty bad. The rankings are used to set the seeds for tournaments, and the most important tournaments at a top level are the slams. Therefore, the most important role of the rankings should be to provide accurate seeds for slams, with a secondary role being accurate seeds for majors, 500s, and 250s. The seeds should be an accurate summation of how likely a given player is to win the average match at that tournament. The rankings just don't do that. Del Potro is significantly more likely to lose in an early round of the French Open than Ferrer, as an example. As such, the rankings aren't fulfilling their role.

I'd much prefer a Glicko-2 ranking system, which varied across surfaces and with a per set weighting to adjust for the fact that slams are best of five sets. That would provide an accurate estimation of who is more likely to win the average match on any given surface, and thus provide a more accurate seeding for tournaments.
Click to expand...

Great points, much agreed.
 
Crab said:
I actually really dislike the rankings system, it's pretty bad. The rankings are used to set the seeds for tournaments, and the most important tournaments at a top level are the slams. Therefore, the most important role of the rankings should be to provide accurate seeds for slams, with a secondary role being accurate seeds for majors, 500s, and 250s. The seeds should be an accurate summation of how likely a given player is to win the average match at that tournament. The rankings just don't do that. Del Potro is significantly more likely to lose in an early round of the French Open than Ferrer, as an example. As such, the rankings aren't fulfilling their role.

I'd much prefer a Glicko-2 ranking system, which varied across surfaces and with a per set weighting to adjust for the fact that slams are best of five sets. That would provide an accurate estimation of who is more likely to win the average match on any given surface, and thus provide a more accurate seeding for tournaments.
Click to expand...

I always found it disappointing that Nadal never got ranked above Federer for the French Open when they were 2 and 1 respectively, it seemed kind of ridiculous considering the record he had on clay. Watching back in the 80's, Wimbledon was great because it actually took into account surface performance in a big way. You'd get dirtballers complaining, but it was right for the tournament to have grass specialists seeded higher.
 
PedroPanache said:
I always found it disappointing that Nadal never got ranked above Federer for the French Open, it seemed kind of ridiculous considering the record he had on clay. Watching back in the 80's, Wimbledon was great because it actually took into account surface performance in a big way. You'd get dirtballers complaining, but it was right for the tournament to have grass specialists seeded higher.
Click to expand...

No, I completely agree. Wimbledon actually still has surface adjustment, only it doesn't do very much because there aren't many grass events in the year. All of the other slams should do the same thing. It'd be one way of bringing back some variety to the tour, because surface specialists would get accurate seedings that allow them to go a bit further in the draw. Nadal should absolutely be the no.1 seed for the French Open even when he isn't no.1 in the rankings. Similarly, Murray should probably be the no.1 seed for Wimbledon this year given his results on grass over the last year, regardless of his current ranking which was predominantly determined by his play on hard-courts.
 
Lol, even the political party SVP (there will be vote in 2 weeks. They want to build a wall around Switzerland and stop immigration) congratulates Stan :P
 
PedroPanache said:
I always found it disappointing that Nadal never got ranked above Federer for the French Open when they were 2 and 1 respectively, it seemed kind of ridiculous considering the record he had on clay. Watching back in the 80's, Wimbledon was great because it actually took into account surface performance in a big way. You'd get dirtballers complaining, but it was right for the tournament to have grass specialists seeded higher.
Click to expand...

1 or 2 doesn't matter at all so who cares? this was a much bigger issue when there were more specialised players that exceeded only on 1 surface.

Wimbledon for example is free to rank players higher or lower. Of course the ranking could be improved but you would make it so confusing that nobody knows what's going on. Didn't the WTA have some sort of weighted point gain depending on who you beat?
 
Diprosalic said:
1 or 2 doesn't matter at all so who cares? this was a much bigger issue when there were more specialised players that exceeded only one 1 surface.

Wimbledon for example is free to rank players higher or lower. Of course the ranking could be improved but you would make it so confusing that nobody knows what's going on. Didn't the WTA have some sort of weighted point gain depending on who you beat?
Click to expand...

ATP used to have it as well, got rid of it in the... late 80s?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

AI "Wii-style" Australian Open tennis goes YouTube live streaming
10
1K
GymWolf replied
Richard Norton Australian actor, martial artist, and choreographer dies at 75
News 
3
564
jason10mm replied
Deadpool & Wolverine Open Spoilers Thread
|OT| Spoilers  3 4 5 6 7
326
21K
near replied
First trailer for the Australian remake of The Office
Cringe  2 3
110
6K
BigDeadFreak replied
Rafael Nadal to retire from Tennis
News 
9
903
12Goblins replied
Top Bottom