A possible situation that may never have happened in tennis before,,, [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

A possible situation that may never have happened in tennis before,,,

Matchu
06-06-2010, 03:52 AM
If Nadal loses the final of RG regardless of his result in Queens next week he could reach a round of Wimbledon and gain the number 1 spot even though Roger may still win Wimbledon. Depending on Rogers result in Halle that would determine how far Nadal would have to go at Wimbledon.

But the thing that really gets me is Roger could win Wimbledon but lose his number 1 ranking. That would surely make a lot of people confused about ATP rankings system. To the best of anyones knowledge has this ever happened before? A player wins a tournament but goes down on the rankings? probably a player ranked around the 60s this would have happened but has this ever occured with the number 1 spot?

vn01
06-06-2010, 07:32 AM
Roger lost in the 3rd round in Indian Wells,in the 4th round in Miami and in the 2nd round in Rome.Rafa made two semis in the USA and won all the clay Masters.So,Rafa deserves the 1st position,because he is the best player of the year so far

Certinfy
06-06-2010, 09:22 AM
Roger lost in the 3rd round in Indian Wells,in the 4th round in Miami and in the 2nd round in Rome.Rafa made two semis in the USA and won all the clay Masters.So,Rafa deserves the 1st position,because he is the best player of the year so far
Unlike Rafa, Roger actually has won a slam this year :wavey:

n8
06-06-2010, 09:45 AM
Good question and the answer is... yes, it has happened before (at the same event funnily enough). In 1999 Sampras won Wimbledon (defended his title), but went from being ranked number one before the event to number three afterwards. Finalist Agassi moved from four to one and Rafter remained at number two.

analysist
06-06-2010, 11:11 AM
In case of Nadal losing final today, even if Federer is going to win Wimbledon & US Open but Nadal 's going deep enough , Federer 'll still lose his no1 after US Open ( although Federer will have 3 Slams and Nadal 'll have none at that moment);)

paseo
06-06-2010, 11:34 AM
In case of Nadal losing final today, even if Federer is going to win Wimbledon & US Open but Nadal 's going deep enough , Federer 'll still lose his no1 after US Open ( although Federer will have 3 Slams and Nadal 'll have none at that moment);)

Now, THIS will be a much more interesting situation.

Apophis
06-06-2010, 11:49 AM
If Nadal loses the final of RG regardless of his result in Queens next week he could reach a round of Wimbledon and gain the number 1 spot even though Roger may still win Wimbledon. Depending on Rogers result in Halle that would determine how far Nadal would have to go at Wimbledon.

But the thing that really gets me is Roger could win Wimbledon but lose his number 1 ranking. That would surely make a lot of people confused about ATP rankings system. To the best of anyones knowledge has this ever happened before? A player wins a tournament but goes down on the rankings? probably a player ranked around the 60s this would have happened but has this ever occured with the number 1 spot?

That's a problem of those people, not us. Most points over last 12 months is hardly a complex rankings system.
What's confusing about a situation where a player who improves on his previous year's result passes a player who does not improve?

Apophis
06-06-2010, 11:54 AM
In case of Nadal losing final today, even if Federer is going to win Wimbledon & US Open but Nadal 's going deep enough , Federer 'll still lose his no1 after US Open ( although Federer will have 3 Slams and Nadal 'll have none at that moment);)

The current system considers a slam only twice as important as a masters series event, but of course emotionally and historically slams are worth much more. That's quite a dilemma for the ATP. They chose the rankings to give a more balanced picture of performances on the tour. The ATP not governing the slams may also play a role.

thrust
06-06-2010, 12:08 PM
Roger lost in the 3rd round in Indian Wells,in the 4th round in Miami and in the 2nd round in Rome.Rafa made two semis in the USA and won all the clay Masters.So,Rafa deserves the 1st position,because he is the best player of the year so far

Rafa will probably win today, he has no points to defend at Wimbledon and Roger is NO guarantee to defend all his Wimbledon points. If Rafa reaches #1 today, he WILL deserve it!

SaFed2005
06-06-2010, 12:46 PM
In case of Nadal losing final today, even if Federer is going to win Wimbledon & US Open but Nadal 's going deep enough , Federer 'll still lose his no1 after US Open ( although Federer will have 3 Slams and Nadal 'll have none at that moment);)

Honestly, that would be AWESOME! :worship:

n8
06-07-2010, 02:23 AM
Good question and the answer is... yes, it has happened before (at the same event funnily enough). In 1999 Sampras won Wimbledon (defended his title), but went from being ranked number one before the event to number three afterwards. Finalist Agassi moved from four to one and Rafter remained at number two.

OK, this I find frustrating. I directly answer the opening post (the only one to do so) with an interesting scenario which is more than 10 years old and no one even acknowledges it.

ogre
06-07-2010, 04:06 AM
As pointed out by Statracket it has happened before. And there was confusion and criticism at that time. A result was the elevation of the calendar year 'race' which can be simpler to understand. Personally i think they should introduce and promote the concept of a 'provisional ranking' where this situation arises. Provisional ranking is ranking with current tournament points not considered. Then it can be explained that the new number one went into the tournament as already 'provisional #1' and only needed runner up or whatever.

Fee
06-07-2010, 06:18 AM
OK, this I find frustrating. I directly answer the opening post (the only one to do so) with an interesting scenario which is more than 10 years old and no one even acknowledges it.

They were probably distracted by your avatar and signature, I know I was. By the way, you could have fulfilled that promise by taking a photo with a rear view. ;)

Anyway, thanks for the info. I know it happens in the WTA all the time, that someone is the #1 player without winning a slam, but I wasn't sure if it had happened in the ATP before. I know it's hard for casual tennis fans to understand the 12 month ranking system, but these are the same people who think there are only two tournaments a year (Wimbledon and the USO). The ATP has done a pretty good job of spreading out the points, but Rafa getting the clay court Masters sweep and having nothing to defend for the second half of the season is a very rare scenario. I think the rankings system will survive this anomaly.

Lopez
06-07-2010, 06:59 AM
They were probably distracted by your avatar and signature, I know I was. By the way, you could have fulfilled that promise by taking a photo with a rear view. ;)

Anyway, thanks for the info. I know it happens in the WTA all the time, that someone is the #1 player without winning a slam, but I wasn't sure if it had happened in the ATP before. I know it's hard for casual tennis fans to understand the 12 month ranking system, but these are the same people who think there are only two tournaments a year (Wimbledon and the USO). The ATP has done a pretty good job of spreading out the points, but Rafa getting the clay court Masters sweep and having nothing to defend for the second half of the season is a very rare scenario. I think the rankings system will survive this anomaly.

Rios naturally.

Someone suggested that the nr 1 ranked player would be the one with most Slam titles at a given time, with cases that are tied (and other rankings) solved by the ranking points.

Not sure whether it's a good idea but an interesting suggestion.

n8
06-07-2010, 07:39 AM
They were probably distracted by your avatar and signature, I know I was. By the way, you could have fulfilled that promise by taking a photo with a rear view. ;)

Anyway, thanks for the info. I know it happens in the WTA all the time, that someone is the #1 player without winning a slam, but I wasn't sure if it had happened in the ATP before. I know it's hard for casual tennis fans to understand the 12 month ranking system, but these are the same people who think there are only two tournaments a year (Wimbledon and the USO). The ATP has done a pretty good job of spreading out the points, but Rafa getting the clay court Masters sweep and having nothing to defend for the second half of the season is a very rare scenario. I think the rankings system will survive this anomaly.

Maybe I'll do a three panel avatar with a front, side and rear view lol. Nah, I shouldn't use all my tricks at once... I think I'll save the rear view for the next one of such forums. :D

Veronique
06-07-2010, 09:42 AM
It's now a moot point anyway. Rafa took #1 in style by winning the French Open.

NADALbULLS
06-07-2010, 10:12 AM
....And destroyed the fedantically federotic world in the process.