"Points vulturing" and defensive players [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

"Points vulturing" and defensive players

duong
09-20-2012, 03:37 PM
In this forum, "points vulturing" is associated with defensive players and especially with Monaco and Ferrer.

I typically read that pure bullshit :


In tennis points vultures are often players who's game style is very defensive, so are unable to gain wins over higher ranked opponents and therefore try to play as many weaker players as possible to inflate their ranking.

This is pure bullshit concerning Ferrer, as he's got more wins against top-players than all of the other players outside of top-4 except Rodddick and Del Potro.

As far as Monaco is concerned :

- Monaco's worst optional result at the moment is 40 points, which is very low for players of the top-20.

- in recent years, Monaco actually played quite few events because he was often injured. How can you vulture points when you play few events ?

- Monaco qualified to two Masters 1000 semifinals, this is something which very very few players have done. Ok Monaco won Hamburg, then I guess Haas who was finalist also was a points vulture.

This "Points vulturing" notion and especially the association with defensive tennis has no reality of any kind, this is pure fan's imagination and I'm very angry with the fact that it has become like "common knowledge" on this website.

It might be possible to discuss the notion of "points vulturing" especially for players who take part in Asian or in a lesser extent south-American challengers with weaker fields, a typical player concerned being Lorenzi (or Stebe in 2011). Or worse for players who take part in futures in countries of Africa or Iran which have few futures.

But the association with defensive tennis (which I don't like) can only be made by people who never look at players' ranking breakdowns.

pusher for life
09-20-2012, 03:40 PM
Ferrer = The Vulture
Monaco = The Vulture In Chief

Period.

duong
09-20-2012, 03:41 PM
Ferrer against top-players comparing to Berdych against top-players (Berdych being presumably a player who, in a good day, can beat anyone, which would not be Ferrer's case):

Ferrer-Djoko 5-9 // Berdych-Djoko 1-9
Ferrer-Murray 5-6 // Berdych-Murray 4-3
Ferrer-Nadal 4-15 // Berdych-Nadal 3-11
Ferrer-Federer 0-13 // Berdych-Federer 5-11 : hurray for you but on clay, Ferrer met Fed in Madrid or Hamburg, on Fed's favorite clay, or a long long time ago when Ferrer was not emerging yet

Already, it's far from convincing for Berdych except his hurray-record against Fed, but look at the following carefully : you will see that most of the time, Ferrer has positive H2Hs against other best players while it's the opposite for Berdych :

Ferrer-Del Po 5-2 // Berdych-Del Po 2-4
Ferrer-Berdych 5-3 // Berdych-Ferrer 3-5
Ferrer-Tsonga 1-1 // Berdych-Tsonga 1-1
Ferrer-Söderling 4-10 // Berdych-Söderling 3-6

Ferrer-Roddick 7-4 // Berdych-Roddick 5-6
Ferrer-Davydenko 2-3 // Berdych-Davydenko 2-9
Ferrer-Nalbandian 8-5 // Berdych-Nalbandian 1-4
Ferrer-Ljubicic 6-1 // Berdych-Ljubicic 2-3
Ferrer-Haas 2-0 // Berdych-Haas 2-2
Ferrer-Gonzo 5-5 // Berdych-Gonzo 3-4
Ferrer-Blake 1-2 / Berdych-Blake 3-2
Ferrer-Youzhny 3-4 // Berdych-Youzhny 5-6
Ferrer-Robredo 5-2 // Berdych-Robredo 4-3

Ferrer-Gasquet 7-1 // Berdych-Gasquet 2-4
Ferrer-Monfils 0-3 // Berdych-Monfils 3-0 : hurray, you've got your case, Berdych owns Monfils while Monfils owns Ferrer !
Ferrer-Baghdatis 3-1 // Berdych-Baghdatis 3-2
Ferrer-Wawrinka 5-3 // Berdych-Wawrinka 4-5
Ferrer-Simon 4-1 // Berdych-Simon 2-4
Ferrer-Almagro 11-0 // Berdych-Almagro 7-3

Ferrer-Raonic 4-0 // Berdych-Raonic 0-1
Ferrer-Isner 4-1 // Berdych-Isner 2-2
Ferrer-Cilic 3-1 // Berdych-Cilic 4-1
Ferrer-Dolgopolov 4-1 // Berdych-Dolgopolov 2-0

motorhead
09-20-2012, 03:47 PM
MArk Lenders posted a bullet proof demonstration to prove his thesis. search for it.

rocketassist
09-20-2012, 03:51 PM
Ferrer and Monaco are different animals. Ferrer can beat big players in slams, Monaco can't.

Monaco's top 10 ranking this year is a lot down to lack of depth. You look at all these players getting their best results close to or at 30. It's becoming a recurring theme.

duong
09-20-2012, 03:52 PM
in the past, you had Golubev or Stakhovsky whose rankings depended on one result : are they defensive players ? no.

This year, Melzer's ranking depends a lot on his win in Memphis. Is he a defensive player ? no.

At the moment here are Tipsarevic's countable optional results :
- Stutgart win : 250 points
- World Team cup win : 250 points
- Moscow win : 250 points
- Kuala win : 250 points
- Gstaad final : 150 points
- Chennai final : 150 points

Is he a defensive player ? no.

In 2010, Youzhny had 4 ATP500 finals in his rankings (Tokyo-Valencia-Rotterdam-Dubai) and a good draw in the US Open. Is he a defensive player ? no.

A few weeks ago, Tsonga had 3 ATP250 wins in his ranking : Vienna-Metz-Doha, is he a defensive player ? no.

The same for Cilic or Fish in the past.

In the rankings, the number of optional results you can count is limited then the number of results you get has little importance except very far in the rankings.

What is important is your highest results. You can get them in different tournament categories, and sometimes you can have good draws or what, but what's the relationshipo with a defensive style ? NO CONNECTION AT ALL.

Sophitia36
09-20-2012, 03:52 PM
You could add (as I did in that locked thread) that this year, in Grand Slams (which do qualify as "big" events, I guess) Ferrer only lost against Djokovic, Nadal and Murray. All of whom are ranked higher and have won one Slam this year.

I admire your work but I don't think anyone is really interested in grounding their opinions in fact over here, sadly :shrug:

End da Game
09-20-2012, 03:53 PM
vultures and pushers are the cancer of tennis, both must be exterminated to allow for real talents like tomic, harrison and roanic to come through and take their rightful place in the top 10 rankings

duong
09-20-2012, 03:54 PM
Ferrer can beat big players in slams, Monaco can't.

you may think that if you want, but what's the connection with the notion of ranking points ?

There's no connection at all !!

If by "big players" people mean "top-4" as often in this forum, nobody can do that except once in a year and it has very little impact in the rankings.

If you mean they can beat worse than top-4 players, many players can beat them. Monaco actually has a positive H2H against Ferrer for instance.

duong
09-20-2012, 03:56 PM
I admire your work but I don't think anyone is really interested in grounding their opinions in fact over here, sadly :shrug:

I know, but the bombarding of this bullshit-notion has gone too far imo, one thread to attack it will not hurt.

Besides, I think some people do have prejudice but still would accept the truth, I think.

Slasher1985
09-20-2012, 03:57 PM
Pardon me, but shouldn't vulturing be referring to players constantly entering tournaments with weak fields ? If that's the case, I don't think positive or negative H2H with higher ranked players have anything to do with vulturing, but rather the number of said matches should dictate that. A player with a high match count against top players, even 0-25, shouldn't be a vulture. That's a sign of choosing big tournaments and failing miserably against high ranked players each time.

motorhead
09-20-2012, 03:57 PM
vultures and pushers are the cancer of tennis, both must be exterminated to allow for real talents like tomic, harrison and roanic to come through and take their rightful place in the top 10 rankings

:haha::haha::haha::haha: harrison is the king of pushers

motorhead
09-20-2012, 03:58 PM
Pardon me, but shouldn't vulturing be referring to players constantly entering tournaments with weak fields ? If that's the case, I don't think positive or negative H2H with higher ranked players have anything to do with vulturing, but rather the number of said matches should dictate that. A player with a high match count against top players, even 0-25, shouldn't be a vulture. That's a sign of choosing big tournaments and failing miserably against high ranked players each time.

this.

/thread.

rocketassist
09-20-2012, 03:59 PM
you may think that if you want, but what's the connection with the notion of ranking points ?

There's no connection at all !!

If by "big players" people mean "top-4" as often in this forum, nobody can do that except once in a year and it has very little impact in the rankings.

If you mean they can beat worse than top-4 players, many players can beat them. Monaco actually has a positive H2H against Ferrer for instance.

Ferrer has a few top 4 and indeed top 10 wins in slams.

Monaco has profitted from a weak field below top 8 or so. A few years ago when you'd expect him to be at his peak age he was nowhere near the top 10.

duong
09-20-2012, 04:00 PM
Pardon me, but shouldn't vulturing be referring to players constantly entering tournaments with weak fields ? If that's the case, I don't think positive or negative H2H with higher ranked players have anything to do with vulturing, but rather the number of said matches should dictate that. A player with a high match count against top players, even 0-25, shouldn't be a vulture. That's a sign of choosing big tournaments and failing miserably against high ranked players each time.


You're perfectly right but with that, I attack one of the sentences of this dogma :

Points vultures exist at all levels of tennis, although are also prominent in other sports such as badminton. In tennis points vulture's are often players who's game style is very defensive, so are unable to gain wins over higher ranked opponents and therefore try to play as many weaker players as possible to inflate their ranking.

This dogma not being rational at all, I agree with you. There's no demonstration of any kind, just a dogma.

duong
09-20-2012, 04:01 PM
Ferrer has a few top 4 and indeed top 10 wins in slams.

Monaco has profitted from a weak field below top 8 or so. A few years ago when you'd expect him to be at his peak age he was nowhere near the top 10.

I displayed many cases of players for whom you could say the same and who are not defensive at all : Golubev, Melzer, Tipsarevic, Tsonga, Stakhovsky in the past, Stebe in 2011 in Asian challengers none of Asian challengers are played on clay !

etc etc ...

rocketassist
09-20-2012, 04:03 PM
I displayed many cases of players for whom you could say the same and who are not defensive at all : Golubev, Melzer, Tipsarevic, Tsonga, Stakhovsky in the past, Stebe in 2011 in Asian challengers none of Asian challengers are played on clay !

etc etc ...

Tsonga's been a top 10 fixture and got to slam finals and semis. Melzer is a strange one I agree, another case of a guy reaching top 10 close to 30. But why is it constantly happening? No depth anymore.

Why mention Stakhovsky, Golubev and Stebe? They're nowhere near top 10.

duong
09-20-2012, 04:05 PM
Why mention Stakhovsky, Golubev and Stebe? They're nowhere near top 10.

The topic of this thread is "Points vulturing", not "top-10".

And points are about rankings, not about your subjective appreciation of this or that player.

Certinfy
09-20-2012, 04:08 PM
Berdych is a better player and has far more years left to just extend how much of a better player he is than Ferrer. Who cares about the comparisons? We all know Birdshit shows up for 3/4 of the year, but at least most of the time he doesn't go to a shitload of MM tournaments where he's the only top 20 player or whatever.

rocketassist
09-20-2012, 04:09 PM
The topic of this thread is "Points vulturing", not "top-10".

And points are about rankings, not about your subjective appreciation of this or that player.

It's a fair point, because if they're ranked that low down, they need to enter these tournaments sometimes as they don't get direct acceptance for Masters events with 48 player draw for example so to be able to get that they have to use 250s and 500s to get there.

Mark Lenders
09-20-2012, 04:12 PM
Give it up. It has been proven many times beyond any reasonable doubt that Ferrer and Monaco are the quintessential vultures. You might want to argue otherwise, but the entry list of the non-mandatory tournaments both (especially Ferrer) play will always beg to differ.

For instance, looking at the Kuala Lumpur entry list for next week only one thing comes to mind: NID :zzz:

156mphserve
09-20-2012, 04:14 PM
Winning a 250 event when your ranked 50 in the world isn't vulturing, you have to play those events when your that low, all the players that low do.

Vulturing exists when top players play a lot of 250 events, or 500 events, or when players ranked 50-70 play a lot of challengers a la Lu.

There really should be a formal defination like >50% of your points coming from non mandatory tournaments if you're a top 20 player or something but we know MTF will never agree on a formal defination which will probably prove their "Ferrer and Monaco are vultures" theory wrong

duong
09-20-2012, 04:21 PM
There really should be a formal defination like >50% of your points coming from non mandatory tournaments if you're a top 20 player or something but we know MTF will never agree on a formal defination which will probably prove their "Ferrer and Monaco are vultures" theory wrong

Top-30 players ranked according to their % of points in non-mandatory tournaments :

Haas 71%
Querrey 65%
Monaco 58%
Chardy 56%
Cilic 56%
Verdasco 55%
Granollers 54%
Seppi 53%
Simon 53%
Raonic 53%
Dolgopolov 51%
Youzhny 50%
Roddick 47%
Almagro 45%
Kohlschreiber 44%
Nishikori 40%
Tipsarevic 39%
Del Potro 38%
Wawrinka 38%
Isner 36%
Berdych 35%
F Mayer 34%
Ferrer 30%
Fish 28%
Nadal 27%
Murray 26%
Tsonga 25%
Federer 17%
Gasquet 17%
Djokovic 11%

ogbg
09-20-2012, 04:24 PM
Gasquet the anti-vulture. A Hyena?

rocketassist
09-20-2012, 04:25 PM
Monaco 58% and he made top 10 with that percentage.

Deathless Mortal
09-20-2012, 04:25 PM
So Haas and Querrey are the biggest vultures :eek:

Ferrer is pretty low on the list, that kinda ruins your point, Lenders. ;)

Action Jackson
09-20-2012, 04:28 PM
Give it up. It has been proven many times beyond any reasonable doubt that Ferrer and Monaco are the quintessential vultures. You might want to argue otherwise, but the entry list of the non-mandatory tournaments both (especially Ferrer) play will always beg to differ.

For instance, looking at the Kuala Lumpur entry list for next week only one thing comes to mind: NID :zzz:

Jorge Mendes look at that table that duong posted and no those figures aren't manipulated.

Therefore you need some of this.

http://www.military-quotes.com/media/data/605/medium/258Troll_spray.jpg

duong
09-20-2012, 04:28 PM
Gasquet the anti-vulture. A Hyena?

A part of that comes from Toronto devaluated Masters-1000.

Besides, he's been for long an expert of R16s thanks to his seed. Has played 14 Grand slam R16s with only one quarterfinal qualification.

Monaco 58% and he made top 10 with that percentage.

I can assure you that in previous years, when Monaco played Shanghai semifinal, it was exactly the opposite, because Monaco was injured for long.

duong
09-20-2012, 04:37 PM
The same in the end of 2010 (yes Monaco already was a top-30 as he will finish for 4 years consecutive in a row in the end of this year) :

Querrey 68%
Troicki 66%
Gasquet 64%
Ferrero 63%
Isner 58%
Baghdatis 56%
Nalbandian 56%
Montanes 52%
Llodra 49%
Youzhny 47%
Fish 47%
Davydenko 42%
Gulbis 42%
Ferrer 41%
Monfils 41%
Cilic 41%
Monaco 37%
Almagro 34%
Verdasco 33%
Melzer 33%
Wawrinka 28%
Ljubicic 26%
Djokovic 25%
Söderling 23%
Roddick 22%
Tsonga 15%
Federer 10%
Berdych 10%
Nadal 6%
Murray 6%

TigerTim
09-20-2012, 04:39 PM
Ferrer IS a vulture

Auckland Open - VULTURED, only a week before AO, no other top 10s
Buenos Ares - VULTURED, shitty clay event
Acupulco - VULUTRED, see above
UNICEF Open - Enough said

as for Monaco
he won the US Mens Clay, king of Vultures Roddick used to do that.

duong
09-20-2012, 04:42 PM
The same in the end of 2011 :

Granollers 76%
Stepanek 75%
Almagro 64%
Ljubicic 61%
Cilic 59%
Nishikori 58%
Del Potro 55%
Troicki 54%
Verdasco 52%
F Mayer 51%
Simon 49%
Monaco 49%
Söderling 49%
Tipsarevic 49%
Monfils 48%
Roddick 47%
Chela 46%
Dolgopolov 42%
Ferrer 41%
Isner 38%
Wawrinka 34%
F Lopez 30%
Berdych 28%
Fish 26%
Tsonga 25%
Gasquet 23%
Nadal 20%
Murray 18%
Federer 15%
Djokovic 7%

motorhead
09-20-2012, 04:44 PM
So Haas and Querrey are the biggest vultures :eek:

Ferrer is pretty low on the list, that kinda ruins your point, Lenders. ;)

I swear I'd have been less surprised if someone had told me that god exist. :eek::eek:

motorhead
09-20-2012, 04:45 PM
The same in the end of 2011 :

Granollers 76%
Stepanek 75%
Almagro 64%
Ljubicic 61%
Cilic 59%
Nishikori 58%
Del Potro 55%
Troicki 54%
Verdasco 52%
F Mayer 51%
Simon 49%
Monaco 49%
Söderling 49%
Tipsarevic 49%
Monfils 48%
Roddick 47%
Chela 46%
Dolgopolov 42%
Ferrer 41%
Isner 38%
Wawrinka 34%
F Lopez 30%
Berdych 28%
Fish 26%
Tsonga 25%
Gasquet 23%
Nadal 20%
Murray 18%
Federer 15%
Djokovic 7%

Granollers is a well recognised vulture.

hipolymer
09-20-2012, 04:45 PM
Djokovic is the anti-vulture. The true number one.

motorhead
09-20-2012, 04:48 PM
finding out that your idol (Tommy Haas) is the king of vultures in a cold afternoon of september is quite shocking.

duong
09-20-2012, 04:48 PM
Ferrer IS a vulture

Auckland Open - VULTURED, only a week before AO, no other top 10s
Buenos Ares - VULTURED, shitty clay event
Acupulco - VULUTRED, see above
UNICEF Open - Enough said


Auckland doesn't count in Ferrer's rankings now

Acapulco had a better field than Memphis and Washington, and even better if you consider that those who came were the specialists of the surface.

Buenos-Aires was a great ATP250 event, with nearly the same field as Acapulco which is an ATP500. Besides, some players were tired in Acapulco, who were not in Buenos-Aires (notably Nalbandian).

Unicef Open : didn't think a claycourt player winning a grasscourt tournament would lead to such a reaction.

motorhead
09-20-2012, 04:50 PM
Auckland doesn't count in Ferrer's rankings now



that's a weak argument my friend.

Hian-GOAT
09-20-2012, 04:53 PM
Vulture haters :o

Hian-GOAT
09-20-2012, 04:54 PM
Djokovic is the anti-vulture. The true number one.

Roger Federer > Novak Djokovic forever and ever :bigwave:

motorhead
09-20-2012, 04:54 PM
don't we have .gifs with the 'vulture' theme?

duong
09-20-2012, 05:03 PM
that's a weak argument my friend.

it's not part of his points means that it doesn't change anything in his ranking, and "points vulturing" is about the rankings !

It's what I said before : you can only count a limited number of tournaments in your rankings, then you can't just accumulate tournaments to improve your rankings, at least in the top-100.

For instance Ferrer will play Kuala Lumpur next week : to vulture points ? even if he wins the tournament, he will not get any point !

To earn money probably but to vulture points ? no !

Mark Lenders
09-20-2012, 05:03 PM
Jorge Mendes look at that table that duong posted and no those figures aren't manipulated.

Therefore you need some of this.

http://www.military-quotes.com/media/data/605/medium/258Troll_spray.jpg

They are not manipulated, just irrelevant. Although it is true that Federer, Tsonga and Djokovic are three of the least vulturish players on tour.

Those numbers are completely irrelevant; you can even have 100% of points collected in non mandatory tournaments and still not be a full blown vulture if those are non mandatory events with strong fields.

ogbg
09-20-2012, 05:05 PM
Maybe this concept requires a different stat. Intuitively, a vulture is someone who beats lots of low-ranked opponents but few high ranked opponents. Here is a list of top 20 players (in 2011) and the average ranking of their beaten opponents in 2011

Novak Djokovic 36.9857
Rafael Nadal 58.1304
Roger Federer 48.5781
Andy Murray 46.7736
David Ferrer 56.678
J-W Tsonga 80.7273
Tomas Berdych 68.5849
Mardy Fish 60.186
Janko Tips 83.7593
Nicolas Almagro 75.5532
Juan Martin DP 70.9583
Gilles Simon 56.2051
Robin Soderling 71.0263
Andy Roddick 99.3824
Alexandr Dolgo 72.0526
Gael Monfils 89.9474
Stanislas Waw 86.2571
John Isner 91.2778
Richard Gasquet 71.7353
Feliciano Lopez 89.7805

duong
09-20-2012, 05:07 PM
For Haas, you have to say that he could only enter 4 Masters 1000 tournaments.

Then of course he has to count other results, including Hamburg and Halle.

The rankings are not as badly done as people think.

It's rather for lower ranked players that you can have strategies like Lorenzi who travels to weaker field challengers, or Dudi Sela.

Going to Asian challengers can pay for points like Stebe last year but it also costs a lot of money as Millman said in a late post on his blog. It's a choice between money and ranking points :shrug:

duong
09-20-2012, 05:10 PM
Maybe this concept requires a different stat. Intuitively, a vulture is someone who beats lots of low-ranked opponents but few high ranked opponents. Here is a list of top 20 players (in 2011) and the average ranking of their beaten opponents in 2011

Novak Djokovic 36.9857
Rafael Nadal 58.1304
Roger Federer 48.5781
Andy Murray 46.7736
David Ferrer 56.678
J-W Tsonga 80.7273
Tomas Berdych 68.5849
Mardy Fish 60.186
Janko Tips 83.7593
Nicolas Almagro 75.5532
Juan Martin DP 70.9583
Gilles Simon 56.2051
Robin Soderling 71.0263
Andy Roddick 99.3824
Alexandr Dolgo 72.0526
Gael Monfils 89.9474
Stanislas Waw 86.2571
John Isner 91.2778
Richard Gasquet 71.7353
Feliciano Lopez 89.7805

yes that can be another kind of stat : please keep on, I'm sure we're going to destroy Lenders' "false evidences" one by one at this rhythm ;)

And I can't make this calculation, at least not as easily as previous one.

Ps : using the median may be better than the average, especially for people who're only concerned with top-players ;)
anyway, I'm certain that all relevant figures one can calculate will go against Lenders' false evidences which just come from his imagination. That's one big interest of statistics to contradict easy dogmas and show that the reality is more complex.

ogbg
09-20-2012, 05:10 PM
maybe there are some outliers in those averages so here are the median values:

Novak Djokovic 27
Rafael Nadal 40
Roger Federer 33
Andy Murray 41
David Ferrer 43
J-W Tsonga 51
Tomas Berdych 51
Mardy Fish 58
Janko Tips 66
Nicolas Almagro 52
Juan Martin DP 61.5
Gilles Simon 44
Robin Soderling 56
Andy Roddick 66.5
Alexandr Dolgo 64
Gael Monfils 56.5
Stanislas Waw 56
John Isner 74.5
Richard Gasquet 54
Feliciano Lopez 57

Mark Lenders
09-20-2012, 05:11 PM
it's not part of his points means that it doesn't change anything in his ranking, and "points vulturing" is about the rankings !

It's what I said before : you can only count a limited number of tournaments in your rankings, then you can't just accumulate tournaments to improve your rankings, at least in the top-100.

For instance Ferrer will play Kuala Lumpur next week : to vulture points ? even if he wins the tournament, he will not get any point !

To earn money probably but to vulture points ? no !

:facepalm:

You're not very clever, are you? Although I do consider the possibility your ignorance is premediated just to try and build up your (non)case - I like to give people the benefit of the doubt.

Yes, Ferrer will have no immediate ranking gain from potentially winning Kuala Lumpur. But vulturing isn't just about immediate gain. He will be able to 'use' the points from that event any time during the next 12 months should the current events couting for his ranking fall/should he fail to defend those results.

I don't expect most MTF posters to be experts at Maths and Logics, but come on, this is not a difficult one.

Slasher1985
09-20-2012, 05:12 PM
Maybe this concept requires a different stat. Intuitively, a vulture is someone who plays lots of low-ranked opponents but few high ranked opponents. Here is a list of top 20 players (in 2011) and the average ranking of their beaten opponents in 2011

I think it's correct now.;)

uxyzapenje
09-20-2012, 05:12 PM
Are you ppl stupid or what? Ferrer is not a vulture bcs he can't beat top players, he's a vulture bcs he enters weak tournaments where he has no competition. Being a vulture doesn't mean you are a bad player... God damn it, bad players can't be vultures bcs they can't win tournaments and in no way are they a lock for winning anything... It's not vulturing if you eneter a 250, it's vulturing if you're a lock for winning it (or at least making a deep run) and you have no reason to play it (home town/country event, first title won there, preparation for the next big tournament/season...) other than getting a few easy points and money and avoiding top players.

Henry Chinaski
09-20-2012, 05:13 PM
duong, you're trying to have a serious discussion with a bunch of trolls.

like pissing in the wind

ogbg
09-20-2012, 05:15 PM
I think it's correct now.;)

Here are the median ranks of player faced (win or lose)

Novak Djokovic 26
Rafael Nadal 26
Roger Federer 28
Andy Murray 34.5
David Ferrer 32.5
J-W Tsonga 36
Tomas Berdych 36
Mardy Fish 49
Janko Tips 59
Nicolas Almagro 46
Juan Martin DP 38
Gilles Simon 37
Robin Soderling 51
Andy Roddick 51
Alexandr Dolgo 55
Gael Monfils 51
Stanislas Waw 50
John Isner 64
Richard Gasquet 36
Feliciano Lopez 38

Sophitia36
09-20-2012, 05:18 PM
The problem is, as Duong pointed out earlier, that different people put different things in the definition of "a vulture".

There are more or less 4 elements:
N°1: playing many tournaments with a weak field.
N°2: getting an "inflated" ranking as a result of N°1.
N°3: being unable to beat very good players.
N°4: being unable to play well in bigger tournaments.

If some people think "vulturing" needs only N°1, then OK, Ferrer is a "vulture". :shrug:
But N°2,3, and 4 are completely untrue when it comes to Ferrer, so if THAT's your definition of a vulture, then calling him a vulture is just against the facts.

You can claim that Ferrer vultures titles and money in these smaller tournaments, but not that he goes there to inflate his ranking with points since it has been shown several times that this is absolutely untrue.

Now, the problem is that, in my opinion, N°1 alone cannot constitute a good definition of "vulturing". Or at least, not a very solid one.
You could argue that maybe some players like to play a lot, maybe they like the tournaments in question, or they think that it's good training for them to compete instead of just practising (eg Ferrer who played very well in Wimbledon after winning UNICEF).
Deciding that they go there as "vultures" is a purely personal interpretation based on nothing but speculation on their motives.

duong
09-20-2012, 05:19 PM
:facepalm:

You're not very clever, are you? Although I do consider the possibility your ignorance is premediated just to try and build up your (non)case - I like to give people the benefit of the doubt.

Yes, Ferrer will have no immediate ranking gain from potentially winning Kuala Lumpur. But vulturing isn't just about immediate gain. He will be able to 'use' the points from that event any time during the next 12 months should the current events couting for his ranking fall/should he fail to defend those results.

of course I know that but actually you're wrong : the problem is since last year, Ferrer plays and wins too many matches to count all of his results.

At the moment he can't count Auckland 250, Valencia 180 and Tokyo 180.

It was the same in the end of last year.

Besides, you're clever enough to know that Ferrer is 1000 points ahead of Berdych in the rankings (and the same in the Race) : 1000 !! do you think he cares for a few points ?

No he goes there for money (and someone also said that he's friend with the tournament's director)

ogbg
09-20-2012, 05:20 PM
Ps : using the median may be better than the average, especially for people who're only concerned with top-players ;)

Yeah, I agree - there are definitely some outliers in there. I added the median in the next post.

Matt01
09-20-2012, 05:25 PM
duong, you're trying to have a serious discussion with a bunch of trolls.

like pissing in the wind


This.

Of course Ferrer and Monaco are no vultures. This whole concept of "vulturing" makes no sense and is stupid.

Mark Lenders
09-20-2012, 05:26 PM
of course I know that but actually you're wrong : the problem is since last year, Ferrer plays and wins too many matches to count all of his results.

At the moment he can't count Auckland 250, Valencia 180 and Tokyo 180.

It was the same in the end of last year.

Besides, you're clever enough to know that Ferrer is 1000 points ahead of Berdych in the rankings (and the same in the Race) : 1000 !! do you think he cares for a few points ?

No he goes there for money (and someone also said that he's friend with the tournament's director)

Exactly, so if he fails to defend the tournaments that are currently counting for his ranking, he has back-up vulture events to replace them and barely lose any points, if at all. These events you claim won't give him points (like Kuala Lumpur) will actually give him points - not immediately, but at any point within the next 12 months. Vulturing isn't just about immediate gain.

TigerTim
09-20-2012, 05:27 PM
http://i687.photobucket.com/albums/vv239/Chuckle2/Abe-Simpson-walking-in-and-out-t-1.gif

Sophitia36
09-20-2012, 05:29 PM
of course I know that but actually you're wrong : the problem is since last year, Ferrer plays and wins too many matches to count all of his results.

At the moment he can't count Auckland 250, Valencia 180 and Tokyo 180.

It was the same in the end of last year.

Besides, you're clever enough to know that Ferrer is 1000 points ahead of Berdych in the rankings (and the same in the Race) : 1000 !! do you think he cares for a few points ?

No he goes there for money (and someone also said that he's friend with the tournament's director)

Yes, maybe, or maybe he just likes to play a lot of tournaments and does not like to stop. This seems to work well for him.

BTW, it also is some kind of accomplishment to play that much and never end up with injuries or complete exhaustion by the end of the season. Which is another reason why I find the indictment of so-called "vultures" really unfair: let those who are jealous of the "vultures" play as much as they do.

Ferrer barely had 5 days to get on a plane, rest (or not) and start practising on the Gijon clay court for the DC semi, all that with the added pressure of being the leader of his team because of Nadal's absence... Maybe he wouldn't be able to do that if he played less during the year.

Slasher1985
09-20-2012, 05:33 PM
Of course Ferrer and Monaco are no vultures. This whole concept of "vulturing" makes no sense and is stupid.

This.

I think you'll have to be looking really hard through the rankings to find players who can remotely be called "vultures". A commitment player cannot score more than 1500 points if he plays only ATP 250 tournaments (which results in 0 points for failing to participate in mandatories) and no ATP 500. But that's impossible, because he has to play at least 4 of those, thus that number is reduced to 500 because penalties are awarded. This is the maximum number of points a commitment player can achieve by staying true to the definition of vulture and always avoiding tournaments with high rankings.

If the balance between games played against top players and games played against weak players is in favor of top, than that player is not a vulture.

Slasher1985
09-20-2012, 05:34 PM
http://i687.photobucket.com/albums/vv239/Chuckle2/Abe-Simpson-walking-in-and-out-t-1.gif

Haha, the Burlesque episode. Nice.:worship:

duong
09-20-2012, 05:34 PM
The problem is, as Duong pointed out earlier, that different people put different things in the definition of "a vulture".

There are more or less 4 elements:
N°1: playing many tournaments with a weak field.
N°2: getting an "inflated" ranking as a result of N°1.
N°3: being unable to beat very good players.
N°4: being unable to play well in bigger tournaments.

You can add n°5 : having a defensive style.

But actually no the definition is precise : it's "points vulture", which means the goal is to inflate the ranking points. And nothing else.

But some trolls here have managed to make a connection between that definition, and the other points which are different, and a whole "theory" around that.

Like many theories or dogmas like that, they're simple and seducive but ... wrong.

If some people think "vulturing" needs only N°1, then OK, Ferrer is a "vulture". :shrug:

Anyway, he would be far from being the only one : Tipsarevic, Isner, Querrey, Dolgopolov, Almagro and many other players may be said that.
Verdasco in the past.

And usually their goal through that is not points but money.

duong, you're trying to have a serious discussion with a bunch of trolls.

like pissing in the wind

the problem is that I've seen from time to time that a simple theory like that may get into the mind of many people, and I had this impression.

Moreover to tell you the truth, I started this thread out of anger when I read that disgusting Wikipedia page : Wikipedia for me is not made to display bullshits like that ! (and neither should MTF be but here I go too far :lol: )

duong
09-20-2012, 05:40 PM
Exactly, so if he fails to defend the tournaments that are currently counting for his ranking, he has back-up vulture events to replace them and barely lose any points, if at all. These events you claim won't give him points (like Kuala Lumpur) will actually give him points - not immediately, but at any point within the next 12 months. Vulturing isn't just about immediate gain.

you repeat what you had previously said but what I meant is that Ferrer has no interest to winning ATP250 tournaments, this situation is the same as last year : Valencia and Tokyo's 180 points already didn't count because he had too many of better results than 180 !! (600 Monte-Carlo 500 Acapulco 300 Barcelona 250 Auckland 225 Davis cup 150 Bastad -last year they couldn't count more than 4 ATP500 results)

Actually without playing any ATP250 tournament, Ferrer would have only 320 points less and have 5640 points, 700 points ahead of Berdych !!

duong
09-20-2012, 05:48 PM
This.

I think you'll have to be looking really hard through the rankings to find players who can remotely be called "vultures".

As I said before, from my daily observation of the rankings which I calculate, the notion of points vulturing would only have a signification for players who accumulate low-field challengers and often travel a lot for that.

Lorenzi was an example who came to my mind.

There's the obvious case of the players who go to Asian challengers where few players go because it costs too mcuh : as Millman explained, you only get your money back if you go very far in the tournaments ! But for Stebe in 2011, he did it and it paid for the points but also for the rankings.

But anyway, what I'm sure of is that the notion of journeymen (much more ancient and well-known from people who really know the Tour), playing to earn money, is much more relevant than the notion of "points vulture".

Because there's no limit to the number of tournaments you can play to get money, and often you just can get appearance fees, there's a limit for the number of tournaments where you can get points.

motorhead
09-20-2012, 05:48 PM
http://i687.photobucket.com/albums/vv239/Chuckle2/Abe-Simpson-walking-in-and-out-t-1.gif

:haha::haha:

August
09-20-2012, 05:49 PM
I'm sure players want to succeed in slams as well as have a high ranking. Succeeding in slams enables you to get a hihg ranking, but if you don't succeed, you can get poits from smaller events. Of course, playing smaller events may compromise your slam success. But he also did relatively well in slam, he lost three times to eventual winner and once to eventual finalist. He isn't a vulture, he is just able to play his best tennis in more tournament than anybody else.

And Monaco is very much a claycourter, but he couldn't have done much better at RG, he lost to Rafa.

Johnny Groove
09-20-2012, 05:55 PM
Just haters.

Jealous that they could never attain tennis heights, and so they try to downgrade the achievements of others in order to try to make themselves feel good.

Sad, really.

stebs
09-20-2012, 06:29 PM
It may not be worthwhile arguing with those who are blind to a quite overwhelming hoard of statistical evidence but this thread is of value for the intriguing statistics posted by ogbg and duong. Thank you for those, they are valuable tools for those of us who enjoy engaging in genuine analysis of the sport.

In terms of vulturing, I know you are set on your definition as 'points vulture' but I prefer Sophitia's tactic of separating the concept. For me, there are the following features (not necessarily all of them are requisites for being deemed a vulture):

1 - Garnering points largely by defeating lower ranked opposition.
2 - Specifically entering tournaments with weak fields (relative to their points value) toward this purpose.
3 - Having a grinding style typically good for defeating poorer players but ineffective against better players.

Number 3 could easily be split into two but I think it is really one 'dogmatic' claim. The notion that vultures are typically grinders comes from the assumption that grinders are successful against poor players but not against the better ones. Whether or not this claim is true at all (and the degree to which it is) is up for debate. Unlike some other claims, I don't think it is obviously false tout court, but clearly it doesn't apply to the situation of Ferrer and Berdych (where Ferrer consistently has a better record against most top 10 players than Berdych has).

Really, this situation is so clear that any feasible definition of vulture is such that Ferrer doesn't fit it. The best way to measure #1 (which is imo the clearest and most sensible definition, #2 is all conjectural and largely rubbish) is to calculate points won per match/rank of opposition beaten to win those points. This wouldn't be an effective measure of the derogatory #2 because one can win tournaments with strong fields without facing the top players. However, this would certainly show the extent to which ones point total is gained by beating lower ranked opposition. The problems of representing it are many (facing very low ranked opposition will skew it etc...) and I'm not a trained statistician. ogbg's median of opposition faced is the kind of thing but really, it needs to be combined with points gained to paint a true picture (which would, for instance, show Gasquet's Toronto points as 'vultured' in some sense).

It would be nice if this thread (created for the impossible task of converting a stubborn few idiots) could be valuable after all.

Gagsquet
09-20-2012, 06:30 PM
Some good comedy here :yeah:

Looner
09-20-2012, 06:35 PM
Just haters.

Jealous that they could never attain tennis heights, and so they try to downgrade the achievements of others in order to try to make themselves feel good.

Sad, really.

Yes, Groove, we're all like you and want to become pros :rolleyes:. On the other stuff I agree.

Orange Wombat
09-20-2012, 06:51 PM
Ferrer is a vulture, but he is still a good player- better than Berdych. He simply plays more tournaments. He equals Berdych (lets use him as example), if not outperforms him at Grand Slams and Masters, while also winning small tournaments. For example, Federer vultured a lot of tournaments at the end of the year, but he is still the highest level player along with Djokovic, Nadal, and Murray.

Certinfy
09-20-2012, 06:53 PM
Ferrer is a vulture, but he is still a good player- better than Berdych. He simply plays more tournaments. He equals Berdych (lets use him as example), if not outperforms him at Grand Slams and Masters, while also winning small tournaments. For example, Federer vultured a lot of tournaments at the end of the year, but he is still the highest level player along with Djokovic, Nadal, and Murray.
Berdych has a MS title and GS final, Ferrer has... oh wait... neither!

Ferrer is a joke, not denying he's great at beating mugs but he sucks latter rounds of big tournaments as much as any player can suck, he's literally a BYE in GS semis or MS finals.

duong
09-20-2012, 07:21 PM
In terms of vulturing, I know you are set on your definition as 'points vulture' but I prefer Sophitia's tactic of separating the concept. For me, there are the following features (not necessarily all of them are requisites for being deemed a vulture):

1 - Garnering points largely by defeating lower ranked opposition.
2 - Specifically entering tournaments with weak fields (relative to their points value) toward this purpose.
3 - Having a grinding style typically good for defeating poorer players but ineffective against better players.

The best way to measure #1 (which is imo the clearest and most sensible definition, #2 is all conjectural and largely rubbish) is to calculate points won per match/rank of opposition beaten to win those points. This wouldn't be an effective measure of the derogatory #2 because one can win tournaments with strong fields without facing the top players. However, this would certainly show the extent to which ones point total is gained by beating lower ranked opposition. The problems of representing it are many (facing very low ranked opposition will skew it etc...) and I'm not a trained statistician. ogbg's median of opposition faced is the kind of thing but really, it needs to be combined with points gained to paint a true picture (which would, for instance, show Gasquet's Toronto points as 'vultured' in some sense).

anyway the #2 is supposed to be aimed at getting points, in the end the definition is about getting easy points.

And frankly speaking I don't think it's a real problem in the top-50, it's more of a problem in the lower ranks as I said.

And frankly speaking, I think the seeding system is much more of a problem in terms of ranking fairness than this in the top-50 because challengers and futures of different fields give the same number of points, and there are problems with the money and distance to go to the places. In the top-50, the importance of the mandatory tournaments in the rankings makes that all of these tournaments were played with quite the same fields.

The notion that vultures are typically grinders comes from the assumption that grinders are successful against poor players but not against the better ones. Whether or not this claim is true at all (and the degree to which it is) is up for debate. Unlike some other claims, I don't think it is obviously false tout court, but clearly it doesn't apply to the situation of Ferrer and Berdych (where Ferrer consistently has a better record against most top 10 players than Berdych has).

It depends for whom.

I'm certain that Federer prefers playing Berdych or Söderling or Tsonga than Simon.

Yes I know Berdych has just beaten Fed in a slam and Tsonga did it one year ago, but Simon was very near to doing it in the Aus open 2011. And Simon is not as highly ranked as Berdych-Tsonga and more importantly he has not met Fed as often as these guys in slams, Fed has defeated them more often that not.

Big hitting is not Fed's main problem against those guys (Berdych made few winners against him), the main problem with Berdych is more about his return, the problem with Tsonga is more about his serve.

And Fed struggles against Murray's or Nadal's defense more than against Djokovic's fast shots.

Of course it's different for Nadal : it's better to out-hit him. And God knows the popularity of beating Nadal on this site :rolleyes:

Against Djokovic, I think grinding can be more effective, Ferrer clearly gives him more problems than Berdych, whatever the people with many prejudice but few memories may remember.

Pirata.
09-20-2012, 07:33 PM
For example, Federer vultured a lot of tournaments at the end of the year, but he is still the highest level player along with Djokovic, Nadal, and Murray.

Basel, Paris and WTF are not vulturable events :lol:

Berdych has a MS title and GS final, Ferrer has... oh wait... neither!

Berdych's MS title is basically a MM title, the field is Paris was laughable that year.

out_grinder
09-20-2012, 07:35 PM
Give it up. It has been proven many times beyond any reasonable doubt that Ferrer and Monaco are the quintessential vultures. You might want to argue otherwise, but the entry list of the non-mandatory tournaments both (especially Ferrer) play will always beg to differ.

For instance, looking at the Kuala Lumpur entry list for next week only one thing comes to mind: NID :zzz:

You jar with me Lenders.

For instance, pretty much the only type of player you will support are the brainless ballbashing variety. You refuse to accept that the definition of talent in tennis extends to defensive attributes (the dark arts) such as returning a cannonball serve, confounding with variety, and performing some mind-boggling retrieving and hitting a winner off a ballbasher shot from a defensive position. I guess if the tennis world was as you'd like it there would only be 6ft 6in baseline bashers incapable of running for the ball. Talent isn't only seeing how hard you can bash a tennis ball from the basline with very little spin for maximum mph's, otherwise tennis would be a very boring game.

Not only does Ferrer put in the hard work (you even criticize the hard work he puts in by calling it 'vulturing'), he also has more top 10 wins than Berdych. Best of both worlds.

Sanya
09-20-2012, 07:40 PM
Actually if you want to call someone a vulture it will be Tipsa. Because he had more points in his ranking from 250 tournaments than other TOP-20 players. Still, this is just stupid term, it should be prohibited to write in any meaning on this forum.

out_grinder
09-20-2012, 07:41 PM
anyway the #2 is supposed to be aimed at getting points, in the end the definition is about getting easy points.

And frankly speaking I don't think it's a real problem in the top-50, it's more of a problem in the lower ranks as I said.

And frankly speaking, I think the seeding system is much more of a problem in terms of ranking fairness than this in the top-50 because challengers and futures of different fields give the same number of points, and there are problems with the money and distance to go to the places. In the top-50, the importance of the mandatory tournaments in the rankings makes that all of these tournaments were played with quite the same fields.



It depends for whom.

I'm certain that Federer prefers playing Berdych or Söderling or Tsonga than Simon.

Yes I know Berdych has just beaten Fed in a slam and Tsonga did it one year ago, but Simon was very near to doing it in the Aus open 2011. And Simon is not as highly ranked as Berdych-Tsonga and more importantly he has not met Fed as often as these guys in slams.

Big hitting is not Fed's problem against those guys (Berdych made few winners against him), the main problem with Berdych is more about his return, the problem with Tsonga is more about his serve.

And Fed struggles against Murray's or Nadal's defense more than against Djokovic's fast shots.

Of course it's different for Nadal : it's better to out-hit him. And God knows the popularity of beating Nadal on this site :rolleyes:

Against Djokovic, I think grinding can be more effective, Ferrer clearly gives him more problems than Berdych, whatever the people with many prejudice but few memories may remember.

Agree, all too often people here simplify things and try to say that the big hitter is always the more dangerous, but it is a case of match-ups.

Berdych in particular can get out_grinded by greats defensive like Djokovic and Nadal - but also he gets blown off the court by bigger hitters than himself - i.e. Del-Potro and Soderling. There is a sweet medium of a player like Federer he seems to be able to capitalize on, but he only 'owns' Federer to the same degree that Federer 'owns' Nadal, when looking at H2H, really.

rocketassist
09-20-2012, 07:41 PM
Not surprised to see Troicki is a big vulture. Would never have got close to top 10 otherwise.

Certinfy
09-20-2012, 07:42 PM
Berdych's MS title is basically a MM title, the field is Paris was laughable that year.
Even with that field Ferrer wouldn't have won it though, your point? :lol:

duong
09-20-2012, 07:49 PM
Even with that field Ferrer wouldn't have won it though, your point? :lol:

Ferrer has won Acapulco several times, stupid answer to stupid answer

stebs
09-20-2012, 08:08 PM
It depends for whom.

I'm certain that Federer prefers playing Berdych or Söderling or Tsonga than Simon.

Yes I know Berdych has just beaten Fed in a slam and Tsonga did it one year ago, but Simon was very near to doing it in the Aus open 2011. And Simon is not as highly ranked as Berdych-Tsonga and more importantly he has not met Fed as often as these guys in slams, Fed has defeated them more often that not.

Big hitting is not Fed's main problem against those guys (Berdych made few winners against him), the main problem with Berdych is more about his return, the problem with Tsonga is more about his serve.

And Fed struggles against Murray's or Nadal's defense more than against Djokovic's fast shots.

Of course it's different for Nadal : it's better to out-hit him. And God knows the popularity of beating Nadal on this site :rolleyes:

Against Djokovic, I think grinding can be more effective, Ferrer clearly gives him more problems than Berdych, whatever the people with many prejudice but few memories may remember.

Well if it depends on circumstances and match-ups enough that there is no consistent pattern, that is a pretty definitive answer to the question (ie, 'no'). Unless there are some reasonable grounds to generalise that grinders typically have that quality (successful against weaker opposition, less of a threat to better), then it's just another dogma. Of course, putting people into categories such as 'grinder' is already a subjective issue and not straightforward. There are certainly several players who may be called grinders who play very differently in both technique and attitude (aggression vs passivity). You already know this, but I'm intruiged as to whether you think there is any scope for a statistical analysis of any kind. This would require a judgement on playing styles first though, which may make it of questionable worth.

Singularity
09-20-2012, 08:18 PM
Even with that field Ferrer wouldn't have won it though, your point? :lol:
He has a 6-1 H2H vs Ljubicic and a 6-3 H2H vs. Stepanek. Never lost on hard to either.

duong
09-20-2012, 08:24 PM
You already know this, but I'm intruiged as to whether you think there is any scope for a statistical analysis of any kind. This would require a judgement on playing styles first though, which may make it of questionable worth.

yes, you're right, and it would need some work, it's always possible to do it on a small scale like taking specific players, but generally I agree that the match-up question goes much further than "grinding/big-hitting".

I think the Fed vs Söderling/Berdych should pretty well convince people that it's much more complicated than "against big hitter".

Especially from my observation, I really think that the ability to return one's serve or to embarrass the other's return is very important in H2Hs as I already said somewhere : players have surprisingly different abilities to return this or that server whatever their "global" returning quality.

Sophitia36
09-20-2012, 08:34 PM
Well if it depends on circumstances and match-ups enough that there is no consistent pattern, that is a pretty definitive answer to the question (ie, 'no'). Unless there are some reasonable grounds to generalise that grinders typically have that quality (successful against weaker opposition, less of a threat to better), then it's just another dogma. Of course, putting people into categories such as 'grinder' is already a subjective issue and not straightforward. There are certainly several players who may be called grinders who play very differently in both technique and attitude (aggression vs passivity). You already know this, but I'm intruiged as to whether you think there is any scope for a statistical analysis of any kind. This would require a judgement on playing styles first though, which may make it of questionable worth.

My thoughts exactly... To gather stats about grinders vs other types of players, you would first need to decide who is a "grinder", and who is something else, and that would be extremely problematic.

I also think it would be relatively pointless, at least, if the aim is to engage in childish arguments about "who's the best" or "who's the most talented".

If there were a way to have a good classification of types of players, then it might be interesting to have very detailed stats about what type of player beats which type of player... But that would probably require an extremely detailed study and I'm not sure the results would be that illuminating.

You jar with me Lenders.

For instance, pretty much the only type of player you will support are the brainless ballbashing variety. You refuse to accept that the definition of talent in tennis extends to defensive attributes (the dark arts) such as returning a cannonball serve, confounding with variety, and performing some mind-boggling retrieving and hitting a winner off a ballbasher shot from a defensive position. I guess if the tennis world was as you'd like it there would only be 6ft 6in baseline bashers incapable of running for the ball. Talent isn't only seeing how hard you can bash a tennis ball from the basline with very little spin for maximum mph's, otherwise tennis would be a very boring game.

Not only does Ferrer put in the hard work (you even criticize the hard work he puts in by calling it 'vulturing'), he also has more top 10 wins than Berdych. Best of both worlds.
:worship: I agree with everything and I love the denomination "dark arts" :D

n8
09-20-2012, 09:55 PM
It's not so much the number of optional events, but the choice of these events that can lead to the vulture label. For example, most top players play one event in January before the Australian Open. It goes without saying that Auckland is going to lead to more vulture jibes than playing Doha. But take a look at the reasoning, a post of mine from another thread:

Ferrer's pre-Australian Open and pre-Wimbledon choices are unusual for someone of his rank. Almost all the top players choose to have a week off before the Major.

Ferrer plays Auckland and s-Hertogenbosch but the absence of a week off doesn't seem to hurt him. This year he won both those events and still made the quarters of the following Slam. Playing the week before works for him, so why change to Doha and Halle? Sure, it would reduce being called a vulture, but I think any sane player would rather the title + Slam quarter.

Another silly reason to be called a vulture is success in smaller events. Had Ferrer gone out early in Auckland and s-Hertogenbosch, he would very likely induce less vulture remarks. So, MTF seems to be punishing players for success rather than schedule which of course is idiotic.

james82
09-20-2012, 11:32 PM
its either vultures or mugs for anyone outside the top 4,when the real mugs and vultures are the ones in the top 4
the top 4 are taking adv of a weak era

duong
09-20-2012, 11:36 PM
Another silly reason to be called a vulture is success in smaller events. Had Ferrer gone out early in Auckland and s-Hertogenbosch, he would very likely induce less vulture remarks. So, MTF seems to be punishing players for success rather than schedule which of course is idiotic.

anyway these points in Auckland and s'Hertogenbosch have no importance in Ferrer's ranking breakdown : together they only give him 70 points (Auckland doesn't count and s'Hertogenbosch counts for 250 - 180 points from Valencia or Tokyo)

70 from 5960 !!

if people really want to speak of vulturing, they should look at lower-ranked players, it has no importance for players like Ferrer. He just wants preparation and money (anyway people in this forum constantly underestimate the importance of money for players :rolleyes: )

Julián Santiago
09-21-2012, 12:36 AM
Keep going Duong

:sport:

Destroy the trolls

rocketassist
09-21-2012, 12:40 AM
anyway these points in Auckland and s'Hertogenbosch have no importance in Ferrer's ranking breakdown : together they only give him 70 points (Auckland doesn't count and s'Hertogenbosch counts for 250 - 180 points from Valencia or Tokyo)

70 from 5960 !!

if people really want to speak of vulturing, they should look at lower-ranked players, it has no importance for players like Ferrer. He just wants preparation and money (anyway people in this forum constantly underestimate the importance of money for players :rolleyes: )

I agree about Ferrer man, he's beaten enough big guys in Slams and has obtained QF SF QF SF in them this year, that's worthy enough.

Troicki and Monaco are clearly vultures though.

ogbg
09-21-2012, 01:05 AM
Based on the average opponent rank, this graph gives an idea of who is above and who is below average for opponent ranking. X-axis is player ranking in 2011, Y-axis is median opponent defeated ranking, blue line is estimate of expected value, green stars are observed values. Green star above blue line means players beaten are on average worse ranked than expected, below line means they are on average better.

Mark Lenders
09-21-2012, 01:14 AM
I agree about Ferrer man, he's beaten enough big guys in Slams and has obtained QF SF QF SF in them this year, that's worthy enough.

Troicki and Monaco are clearly vultures though.

Who exactly are these 'big' guys? He has simply lucked out with the draws (obtained due to his vulturing) and kept facing mug after mug, losing to the first good player he faced. Murray is a mug on clay, as is JMDP on grass.

ogbg
09-21-2012, 01:19 AM
Same figure but with player names and a grid

rocketassist
09-21-2012, 01:25 AM
Who exactly are these 'big' guys? He has simply lucked out with the draws (obtained due to his vulturing) and kept facing mug after mug, losing to the first good player he faced. Murray is a mug on clay, as is JMDP on grass.

Nadal twice, Roddick, Hewitt a couple of times, Tipsarevic, Del Potro again at the AO, Ferrero, Nalbandian, defending RG champ Gaudio plus the TMC where he defeated both Nadal and Djokovic. He's no Monaco or Troicki, he at least has some credible victories and hasn't achieved his resume solely by beating low ranked players in small tournaments.

Mark Lenders
09-21-2012, 01:29 AM
Nadal twice, Roddick, Hewitt a couple of times, Tipsarevic, Del Potro again at the AO, Ferrero, Nalbandian, defending RG champ Gaudio plus the TMC where he defeated both Nadal and Djokovic. He's no Monaco or Troicki, he at least has some credible victories and hasn't achieved his resume solely by beating low ranked players in small tournaments.

Fair enough. His ranking is definitely more legitimate than Mugaco's.

But then again, hardly anything can be less legitimate than Mugaco gracing the top 10. Has this mug ever done anything even worth mentioning apart from bringing in the lube every time he faces a good player?

Matt01
09-21-2012, 01:33 AM
Fair enough. His ranking is definitely more legitimate than Mugaco's.

But then again, hardly anything can be less legitimate than Mugaco gracing the top 10. Has this mug ever done anything even worth mentioning apart from bringing in the lube every time he faces a good player?


:facepalm:

I think "Mugaco" has already beaten all top 10 players bar Federer but apart from that, he has good records against players like Murray or Ferrer who are obviously much higher than him in the rankings.

rocketassist
09-21-2012, 01:38 AM
Monaco's only use these days is cheering Nadal up with FIFA sessions and also giving him a free bye should the tournament draws pair them up at any point.

Topspindoctor
09-21-2012, 01:39 AM
Give it up. It has been proven many times beyond any reasonable doubt that Ferrer and Monaco are the quintessential vultures. You might want to argue otherwise, but the entry list of the non-mandatory tournaments both (especially Ferrer) play will always beg to differ.

For instance, looking at the Kuala Lumpur entry list for next week only one thing comes to mind: NID :zzz:

You are a fan of a guy whose biggest titles outside the USO include "prestigious" events like Estoril, LA and Delray Beach and you call other players vultures...? :spit::superlol:

Mark Lenders
09-21-2012, 01:46 AM
You are a fan of a guy whose biggest titles outside the USO include "prestigious" events like Estoril, LA and Delray Beach and you call other players vultures...? :spit::superlol:

The bolded part is key ;)

Besides, the Estoril title is the most prestigious title there is :cool:

GOATsol
09-21-2012, 01:54 AM
You are a fan of a guy whose biggest titles outside the USO include "prestigious" events like Estoril, LA and Delray Beach and you call other players vultures...? :spit::superlol:
He had a fucking injury you nadulltard. :rolleyes:

Topspindoctor
09-21-2012, 01:58 AM
He had a fucking injury you nadulltard. :rolleyes:

"Injuries are part of the sport"


Oh wait

I am sorry

This logic only applies to Nadal (who is faking anyway)

:cool:

Mark Lenders
09-21-2012, 01:59 AM
He had a fucking injury you nadulltard. :rolleyes:

That's a mild way to put it. He had one huge injury that led to him having surgery and spending a year off the tour, and then tons of niggles/injuries derailing his comeback.

His mental strength/champion mentality is the only reasons he hasn't cracked mentally with all these setbacks and remains in the mix. Any lesser player would have long faded away.

Matt01
09-21-2012, 02:00 AM
He had a fucking injury you nadulltard. :rolleyes:


Well, I hate to say it but injuries are part of the game. :sad: Of course he's a better player than Ferrer but Ferrer is consistant day in and day out and also deserves credit for that. :)

GOATsol
09-21-2012, 02:10 AM
"Injuries are part of the sport"


Oh wait

I am sorry

This logic only applies to Nadal (who is faking anyway)

:cool:
Yes, injuries are part of the sport. Nadull would have probably won more slams if he hadn't gotten injured--but then again, his injuries are caused by his game style which is the reason for his slams. Nadull, however, never needed surgery like Del Potro did. (and Del Potro seems to get a different injury every month.)

Del Potro had a career threatening injury and still hasn't found his 2009 form yet.

But only an idiot would say that Del Potro wouldn't have done much, much better without the injury.

Thunderfish8
09-21-2012, 03:07 AM
In case anybody hasn't realized, Ferrer is the top seed in next week's tournament in Kuala Lumpur.

While I expect Lenders, pusher for life, and tyson to come out in full force with their vulture bullshit, I'd like to bring something to light.

If you go to Ferrer's rankings breakdown on the ATP website, you will see that he has maxed out his "other countable tournaments" (those other than GS, 1000, 500, davis cup, and WTF). In fact, his win in Bastad is not even included in his ranking right now. So regardless of his result, he will not gain or lose any points overall.
This means that he entered the tournament knowing that no matter what, he could not gain any points to his ranking.
And, using basic human logic, we can conclude that he entered this tournament for a reason other than gaining ranking points.
He may have entered to keep his form up (some players do not react well to long breaks), or to keep his confidence up by getting some wins.
He may have even just entered because he wants to play more matches.

And why shouldn't he?

I think this move summarizes Ferrer's personality. He is not so worried about his ranking. He loves what he does and never complains or whines. What he loves do to is play matches as much as possible even if there's only a bit of prize money in it for him and no ranking points.

Does this sound like a "vulture" to you guys?
Because as John Stewart would say, the people who are still calling him a vulture are living atop bullshit mountain.

What do you guys think?

Now are you finally convinced that he is not doing anything wrong?

n8
09-21-2012, 04:59 AM
One of the most vulturistic players in Tursunov.

Selected Challenger appearances, titles in bold, and current ranking in parentheses.
Dnepropetrovsk 2006 (22)
Sunrise 2007 (21)
Dnepropetrovsk 2007 (34)
Astana 2008 (25)
Dnepropetrovsk 2008 (25)
Helsinki 2008 (27)

The very occasional Challenger for a top 30 player may be OK given special circumstances, but Tursunov went on a three week Challenger tour at the end of 2008 when he'd been top 37 the whole year!

duong
09-21-2012, 08:11 AM
I agree about Ferrer man, he's beaten enough big guys in Slams and has obtained QF SF QF SF in them this year, that's worthy enough.

Troicki and Monaco are clearly vultures though.

Whether or not it's about Ferrer or Troicki or Monaco, my main point is that this whole "points vulture" thing is bullshit as far as the top-50 is concerned.

Players may choose to play more or less ATP250 or ATP500 tournaments (for instance Wawrinka plays few ones), but it's much more a matter of money than a matter of rankings, because in the end it doesn't have much importance in the rankings for such players.

It's very different for players with a lower rank because in challengers, clearly there are better or weaker fields which give quite as many points, and also because these players count a lot of optional tournaments, not mandatory tournaments then their choice of playing this or that challenger has much importance.

As far as the top-50 is concerned, I think people should be more concerned about the influence of the seedings, which clearly make it harder for some players comparing to some others, as Berdych and Tsonga pointed out before last Australian open. And as some sometimes say, it's worse since the new system with an impossibility for top-8 players to meet seeds 17-24 before R16 and so on.


One of the most vulturistic players in Tursunov.

Selected Challenger appearances, titles in bold, and current ranking in parentheses.
Dnepropetrovsk 2006 (22)
Sunrise 2007 (21)
Dnepropetrovsk 2007 (34)
Astana 2008 (25)
Dnepropetrovsk 2008 (25)
Helsinki 2008 (27)

The very occasional Challenger for a top 30 player may be OK given special circumstances, but Tursunov went on a three week Challenger tour at the end of 2008 when he'd been top 37 the whole year!

Sunrise is a special case, as you know the final there was Söderling-Berdych a few years ago.

Helsinki and Dniepropetrovsk as well as they are/were tournaments right in the end of the year after all the ATP main tour tournaments were played : if he wanted to play in that period, and that's his choice, he could only play these tournaments.

Besides, except Helsinki, these tournaments are in ex-USSR and Tursunov probably is well-known there and then can ask a lot of appearance fee.

Anyway, a player ranked 20 in the world like Tursunov had no interest at all in terms of points as he could only get points by winning the tournament.

This whole "points vulturing" thing is bullshit, and I'm sad that people like Stebs and you and many others who disagree with Mark Lenders still use that notion and seem to give some credit to it.

These cases are not about "points vulturing", they're mostly about money or other scheduling reasons which make that those guys play those tournaments.

If you want to speak about vulturing points, look at lower ranked players and their choice either for strong field or weak field challengers and the places where those challengers are located, which attract better or worse players.

Sophitia36
09-21-2012, 09:05 AM
Del Potro had a career threatening injury and still hasn't found his 2009 form yet.

But only an idiot would say that Del Potro wouldn't have done much, much better without the injury.

But it's also very easy to say, because unless he finally gets healthy again, no one will ever be able to check that...
The thing is, you don't know what would have happened without the injury. People who love Del Potro are convinced he would have become the GOAT, or won countless Slams, others like to think he was a fluke.
My position is, there is no point in speculating.

I'm a broken record with my Coria example, but really, he also had to stop because his game was destroyed by an injury, and although I can't help but think about what a Coria/Nadal rivalry would have been like, it did not happen and never will. I can spend my life repeating "but Coria was such a great clay-courter, of course he would have threatened Nadal!" but that's just me dreaming.

In case anybody hasn't realized, Ferrer is the top seed in next week's tournament in Kuala Lumpur.
[...]
And, using basic human logic, we can conclude that he entered this tournament for a reason other than gaining ranking points.
He may have entered to keep his form up (some players do not react well to long breaks), or to keep his confidence up by getting some wins.
He may have even just entered because he wants to play more matches.

And why shouldn't he?

I think this move summarizes Ferrer's personality. He is not so worried about his ranking. He loves what he does and never complains or whines. What he loves do to is play matches as much as possible even if there's only a bit of prize money in it for him and no ranking points.


Yeah that's how I see it too. I don't know much about his attitude to money. He may or may not be motivated by this (he surely is at least partly motivated by this).
I think he just likes to play a lot, because he enjoys it, and/or because that's what works best for him. Getting confidence from titles is also a good point.

duong
09-21-2012, 09:09 AM
I don't know much about his attitude to money. He may or may not be motivated by this (he surely is at least partly motivated by this).
I think he just likes to play a lot, because he enjoys it, and/or because that's what works best for him. Getting confidence from titles is also a good point.

working for money is nothing bad, we all do that in our job :shrug:
when he retires, he will give a good life to his family

Sophitia36
09-21-2012, 09:12 AM
working for money is nothing bad, we all do that in our job :shrug:
when he retires, he will give a good life to his family

Sure but I mean there are also other motivations.

He has had a long career already, I'm sure he has plenty of money already and doesn't really need to play that much just for money. But well, even a long career is a short one in sports, so I guess making a lot of money before you stop playing can be a strong incentive.

Mark Lenders
09-21-2012, 09:15 AM
But it's also very easy to say, because unless he finally gets healthy again, no one will ever be able to check that...
The thing is, you don't know what would have happened without the injury. People who love Del Potro are convinced he would have become the GOAT, or won countless Slams, others like to think he was a fluke.
My position is, there is no point in speculating.

BS. No, they aren't.

They (we) are convinced he'd have remained a top player and a contender for the big titles, in the mix with Federer, Nadal, Djokovic... that's all. No one ever foresaw 'GOAThood' or 'countless Slams'.

asmazif
09-21-2012, 09:16 AM
:facepalm:

I think "Mugaco" has already beaten all top 10 players bar Federer but apart from that, he has good records against players like Murray or Ferrer who are obviously much higher than him in the rankings.

Noleo would beg to differ. and Pico's Nadal win was a retirement at 6-6 first set. and he's never beaten Tsonga or Berdych.

Action Jackson
09-21-2012, 09:18 AM
No, Lenders you can't have a ranking system where your favourites are ranked higher because they play a more aesthetically pleasing style.

ATP is not diving or ski jumping where they reward points for style.

Mark Lenders
09-21-2012, 09:24 AM
No, Lenders you can't have a ranking system where your favourites are ranked higher because they play a more aesthetically pleasing style.

ATP is not diving or ski jumping where they reward points for style.

Never wanted one. Just want a ranking system where players aren't allowed to reach the top positions by vulturing off weak fields and then, even worse, be able to hold on to those positions because, due to seedings, they keep getting weak draws.

asmazif
09-21-2012, 09:36 AM
There is but one true Vulture, and his name is Béla von Kehrling.

duong
09-21-2012, 09:50 AM
Never wanted one. Just want a ranking system where players aren't allowed to reach the top positions by vulturing off weak fields and then, even worse, be able to hold on to those positions because, due to seedings, they keep getting weak draws.

in 2011 in mandatory tournaments, Berdych continuously went to QF or R16 taking advantage of his seed and weaker opponents to bump into better players.

in 2012, in a lesser extent, Del Potro also took advantage of his seed and good draws in mandatory tournaments.

Gagsquet
09-21-2012, 09:50 AM
This Lenders could go far in ACC.

Sophitia36
09-21-2012, 10:19 AM
BS. No, they aren't.

They (we) are convinced he'd have remained a top player and a contender for the big titles, in the mix with Federer, Nadal, Djokovic... that's all. No one ever foresaw 'GOAThood' or 'countless Slams'.

The most rabid ones surely did believe that.

But anyway, you can replace "countless Slams" by "many Slams", or even "several Slams", or even "Slam finals", it does not change my point.

My point is, you cannot found an argument on speculation about what a player MIGHT have achieved IF he had not been injured.

Sure, there will always be regrets when a promising player is injured. I'm sorry for Del Potro fans, because as a former Coria fan I know what it feels like, when your player just stops being able to play, underachieves and disappears. I can only wish a different outcome for Del Potro and for his fans.
But that's life, it's sad, but there's no point in venting frustration by bashing a guy like Ferrer because he's almost never injured, is ranked higher and is guilty of having a tennis that's less pleasing to you.

Never wanted one. Just want a ranking system where players aren't allowed to reach the top positions by vulturing off weak fields and then, even worse, be able to hold on to those positions because, due to seedings, they keep getting weak draws.

That's also a flawed argument... The Big 3 also get "weak draws" constantly. And even with that, they don't always win (cf Nadal/Rosol, Federer/Berych this year).

What's more, except right now, when Ferrer gets weaker draws because of Nadal's injury, he is n°5, so basically he doesn't get better draws than the players who are right behind him.

n8
09-21-2012, 10:54 AM
As far as the top-50 is concerned, I think people should be more concerned about the influence of the seedings, which clearly make it harder for some players comparing to some others, as Berdych and Tsonga pointed out before last Australian open. And as some sometimes say, it's worse since the new system with an impossibility for top-8 players to meet seeds 17-24 before R16 and so on.


Yep, I made a thread about this. 25-32 and 13-16 seeds draw the short straw.



Sunrise is a special case, as you know the final there was Söderling-Berdych a few years ago.

Helsinki and Dniepropetrovsk as well as they are/were tournaments right in the end of the year after all the ATP main tour tournaments were played : if he wanted to play in that period, and that's his choice, he could only play these tournaments.

Besides, except Helsinki, these tournaments are in ex-USSR and Tursunov probably is well-known there and then can ask a lot of appearance fee.

Anyway, a player ranked 20 in the world like Tursunov had no interest at all in terms of points as he could only get points by winning the tournament.

This whole "points vulturing" thing is bullshit, and I'm sad that people like Stebs and you and many others who disagree with Mark Lenders still use that notion and seSurem to give some credit to it.

These cases are not about "points vulturing", they're mostly about money or other scheduling reasons which make that those guys play those tournaments.

If you want to speak about vulturing points, look at lower ranked players and their choice either for strong field or weak field challengers and the places where those challengers are located, which attract better or worse players.

Yeah, Sunrise had a top draw but I was relying on most people not knowing that when I made my point lol. I'm one of the last posters to call people names (I never have called someone a mug), but you must admit that a top 30 player signing up for 3 end of season Challengers is strange. Yes, all tour level tournaments had ended, but Tursunov should've had an off season like everyone else. He had already played a full 2008. Well he paid the price of a super long season with a horrid start to 2009.

But you're right, he probably didn't play those Challengers for points so I'm sorry for calling him vulturistic. Maybe he was being altruistic in pleasing Challenger crowds. :p

Action Jackson
09-21-2012, 10:58 AM
Yeah, Sunrise had a top draw but I was relying on most people not knowing that when I made my point lol. I'm one of the last posters to call people names (I never have called someone a mug), but you must admit that a top 30 player signing up for 3 end of season Challengers is strange. Yes, all tour level tournaments had ended, but Tursunov should've had an off season like everyone else. He had already played a full 2008. Well he paid the price of a super long season with a horrid start to 2009.

But you're right, he probably didn't play those Challengers for points so I'm sorry for calling him vulturistic. Maybe he was being altruistic in pleasing Challenger crowds. :p

Dnepropetrovsk was a legendary Challenger that's why Tursunov played it. It was a 125K, plenty of appearance money offered as well among other things. As for Tursunov missed a lot of the sport through very bad injuries and he always played a lot of events.

duong
09-21-2012, 11:11 AM
Dnepropetrovsk was a legendary Challenger that's why Tursunov played it. It was a 125K, plenty of appearance money offered as well among other things. As for Tursunov missed a lot of the sport through very bad injuries and he always played a lot of events.

Santoro who was also known for being eager for money also won Dniepropetrovsk challenger by the end of his carreer

Action Jackson
09-21-2012, 11:19 AM
Never wanted one. Just want a ranking system where players aren't allowed to reach the top positions by vulturing off weak fields and then, even worse, be able to hold on to those positions because, due to seedings, they keep getting weak draws.

Of course you do, therefore your continual trolling and failing to understand how the rankings actually work. Wah, wah, wah if these players you are always going on about Tsonga, del Potro and Berdych are better then prove it consistently throughout the year and they'd be ranked higher.

Like Jorge Mendes you are full of it, hence the reference.

http://cdn.ebaumsworld.com/picture/Rizzor/beatingadeadhorse.gif

Nr 1 Fan
09-21-2012, 12:07 PM
First of all, excellent thread.

Ferrer and Monaco are different animals. Ferrer can beat big players in slams, Monaco can't.

Monaco's top 10 ranking this year is a lot down to lack of depth. You look at all these players getting their best results close to or at 30. It's becoming a recurring theme.

But what is beating big players, top 4? Because nobody can do that in the slams on a regular basis. Ferrer is just the best of the rest, challenging the top 4 over and over again without beating them (enough) and consistently outperforming everybody else by a long shot, in 250's 500's, Masters series and Slams.

Give it up. It has been proven many times beyond any reasonable doubt that Ferrer and Monaco are the quintessential vultures. You might want to argue otherwise, but the entry list of the non-mandatory tournaments both (especially Ferrer) play will always beg to differ.

For instance, looking at the Kuala Lumpur entry list for next week only one thing comes to mind: NID :zzz:

Maybe he just likes playing tennis and tournaments and plays as much as possible, because he never gets tired of it. Ferrer in slams this year: QF, SF, QF, SF. You cannot argue with that.

Top-30 players ranked according to their % of points in non-mandatory tournaments :

Haas 71%
Querrey 65%
Monaco 58%
Chardy 56%
Cilic 56%
Verdasco 55%
Granollers 54%
Seppi 53%
Simon 53%
Raonic 53%
Dolgopolov 51%
Youzhny 50%
Roddick 47%
Almagro 45%
Kohlschreiber 44%
Nishikori 40%
Tipsarevic 39%
Del Potro 38%
Wawrinka 38%
Isner 36%
Berdych 35%
F Mayer 34%
Ferrer 30%
Fish 28%
Nadal 27%
Murray 26%
Tsonga 25%
Federer 17%
Gasquet 17%
Djokovic 11%

I love how "real talents" and "superior players", like Del Potro, Raonic and Berdych are well above Ferrer on that list.
Don't get me wrong, I like them, but these are hard facts that they are more of a "vulture" than Ferrer is.

Nr 1 Fan
09-21-2012, 12:22 PM
In case anybody hasn't realized, Ferrer is the top seed in next week's tournament in Kuala Lumpur.

While I expect Lenders, pusher for life, and tyson to come out in full force with their vulture bullshit, I'd like to bring something to light.

If you go to Ferrer's rankings breakdown on the ATP website, you will see that he has maxed out his "other countable tournaments" (those other than GS, 1000, 500, davis cup, and WTF). In fact, his win in Bastad is not even included in his ranking right now. So regardless of his result, he will not gain or lose any points overall.
This means that he entered the tournament knowing that no matter what, he could not gain any points to his ranking.
And, using basic human logic, we can conclude that he entered this tournament for a reason other than gaining ranking points.
He may have entered to keep his form up (some players do not react well to long breaks), or to keep his confidence up by getting some wins.
He may have even just entered because he wants to play more matches.

And why shouldn't he?

I think this move summarizes Ferrer's personality. He is not so worried about his ranking. He loves what he does and never complains or whines. What he loves do to is play matches as much as possible even if there's only a bit of prize money in it for him and no ranking points.

Does this sound like a "vulture" to you guys?
Because as John Stewart would say, the people who are still calling him a vulture are living atop bullshit mountain.

What do you guys think?

Now are you finally convinced that he is not doing anything wrong?

Exactly, playing this many tournaments fits in his character, he's a hard working guy who happens to absolutely love his job. So he plays as many tournaments as he likes.

The bolded part is key ;)

Besides, the Estoril title is the most prestigious title there is :cool:

So if Ferrer won 1 slam, you agree his career would be far superior to Delpo's?
Even as Delpo fan I have to say that winning one slam doesn't give you credit forever. IMO, one slam is not more worth than for example 10 masters series and 10 500's.

stebs
09-21-2012, 12:30 PM
This whole "points vulturing" thing is bullshit, and I'm sad that people like Stebs and you and many others who disagree with Mark Lenders still use that notion and seem to give some credit to it.

:shrug: I've never called anybody a vulture. I thought your project with this thread was to give a clear definition to the word and show with statistics who it does and does not apply to. In your case, you chose a definition which rules it out as applicable to any player remotely near the top (I agree that is the consequence of giving it that definition). As long as we're playing that game, there are other things that are signified by the word (as used by others, not myself). I don't like the negative tone of it, even in the case where a player clearly earns many points without playing very good opponents (relative to his own rank), that is more often circumstantial than it is a directed intention.

The point here isn't complicated anyway. You've created a false dichotomy by stating that either vulturing (as 'points vulturing') does or does not exist. The truth is rather as indicated in ogbg's graph. Namely, a spectrum on which players can be viewed relative to an expected value. I am not suggesting those whose numbers fall on one side of that line are 'vultures' in the ridiculous sense suggested by Lenders and co. It's rather an interesting statistic which shows who has had to face the toughest opposition largely as a matter of chance (for very top players, the data is largely made up of 1000 and slam matches anyway). Don't get mad. One can use a terminology without accepting it's ludicrous connotations.

duong
09-21-2012, 01:21 PM
In your case, you chose a definition which rules it out as applicable to any player remotely near the top (I agree that is the consequence of giving it that definition). As long as we're playing that game, there are other things that are signified by the word (as used by others, not myself).

First of all, the definition from which I started was the one people (probably a stupid guy from from this forum) had put on Wikipedia, and this definition clearly referred to ranking points (be careful I destroyed the additional elements which you can see in the version before) :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Points_Vulture

In tennis, a Points Vulture is generally a player who over-inflates their ranking by playing many events where the entry list is much worse than in another tournament.

And then in the same Wikipedia page, they, like the typical Lenders of this forum, completed their theory by the other points which are connected by the Lenders and even many others who have no bad intentions like you in this forum :

In tennis points vultures are often players whose game style is very defensive, so are unable to gain wins over higher ranked opponents and therefore try to play as many weaker players as possible to inflate their ranking.

But please note that this is not a separate definition but there is clearly a causality link between both.

Even in the post where you separated several notions :

1 - Garnering points largely by defeating lower ranked opposition.
2 - Specifically entering tournaments with weak fields (relative to their points value) toward this purpose.
3 - Having a grinding style typically good for defeating poorer players but ineffective against better players.

you specifically said that the point #2 was precisely aimed to get ranking points.

As for the point 3, that's an interesting topic about which we talked a little bit, I did not refuse it (especially because to show that a whole theory is wrong, you can always disprove the less important points to fragilize the whole setting), but it goes far wider than the topic of ranking points : it's more a precision, a characterisation of the point 2 than a separate one.


The point here isn't complicated anyway. You've created a false dichotomy by stating that either vulturing (as 'points vulturing') does or does not exist.

No I didn't create a dichotomy : I said that this phenomenon is marginal for the top-50 players and then not worthy of the importance some people give to it here, but it's important for challenger players.


The truth is rather as indicated in ogbg's graph. Namely, a spectrum on which players can be viewed relative to an expected value. I am not suggesting those whose numbers fall on one side of that line are 'vultures' in the ridiculous sense suggested by Lenders and co. It's rather an interesting statistic which shows who has had to face the toughest opposition largely as a matter of chance (for very top players, the data is largely made up of 1000 and slam matches anyway).

Stats are stats, calculations, but very often people choose wrong interpretations of these stats to say that "yes it proves my point", whereas the interpretation may be different.

In ogbg's graph which is interesting, the result that top-4 top-8 players meet more often top-players than the others is mostly a consequence of the fact that they go far in tournaments. It's not like in the "vulture" theory that less good players play more often lower ranked players than them with the purpose of improving their ranking, which is the whole point of the "vulturing" theory.

I like ogbg's stats and the ones I made, we can always make all kinds of stats for people who want to improve their knowledge, but the interpretations are more important than the stats themselves, and the interpretations are never derived directly from the stats even though they sound "obvious" to some.

When you speak of a spectrum, inevitably you imply that well, they are not complete vultures but still a little bit and there's a "spectrum of vulturing". You can say all the "I am not suggesting those whose numbers fall on one side of that line are 'vultures'" that you want, inevitably these interpretations do come ... and there was no surprise : you inevitably had the reactions "Haas, Querrey, Granollers are the biggest vultures" !

You think you've only calculated a number, but no you've done more : you've entered/proved the theory because you made ready an easy interpretation.

And my point in this thread was not about "which players get more points in mandatory tournaments or not" "what's the level of the players each player does play" but my topic was about the vulturing theory, that you can choose your tournaments to get easier points : it exists actually, but for challenger players ! for the others it's marginal (and we could talk in great lengths whether the points are easier to get in ATP250 tournaments or Masters 1000 tournaments or Grand slams, which is actually an interesting topic but which doesn't have an obvious result as some think)


Don't get mad. One can use a terminology without accepting it's ludicrous connotations.

the problem is that you say that you don't accept the connotations however you accept the 3 different definitions (even there was a fourth one in your first post) which all are related to points which are put in connection/connotation in the theory, which means imo that you give credit to these connections/connotations.

Mark Lenders
09-21-2012, 02:05 PM
in 2011 in mandatory tournaments, Berdych continuously went to QF or R16 taking advantage of his seed and weaker opponents to bump into better players.

in 2012, in a lesser extent, Del Potro also took advantage of his seed and good draws in mandatory tournaments.

This is BS, especially as far as Del Potro is concerned. He has exceeded his seeding in three of the five most important tournaments this season - seeded #9 at AO and RG, reached QF, seeded #8 at OG, won the bronze medal - and lived up to it in the other two. He also exceeded his seeding in most Masters tournaments.

This Lenders could go far in ACC.

I can't. I don't antagonize the biggest/main fanbases enough, namely Federer's.

The most rabid ones surely did believe that.

But anyway, you can replace "countless Slams" by "many Slams", or even "several Slams", or even "Slam finals", it does not change my point.

My point is, you cannot found an argument on speculation about what a player MIGHT have achieved IF he had not been injured.

Sure, there will always be regrets when a promising player is injured. I'm sorry for Del Potro fans, because as a former Coria fan I know what it feels like, when your player just stops being able to play, underachieves and disappears. I can only wish a different outcome for Del Potro and for his fans.
But that's life, it's sad, but there's no point in venting frustration by bashing a guy like Ferrer because he's almost never injured, is ranked higher and is guilty of having a tennis that's less pleasing to you.

Every relevant player has their fair share of rabid fans, they are not to be taken seriously. What reasonable Del Potro fans believe is that he could have remained in the mix had his body allowed him. He might or might have not won another Slam(s); he'd be one of the top contenders for sure, but winning a Slam title is harder than it sounds. But the reason Del Potro fans are sad/upset with his injury(ies) is not because he'd have won *insert number of Slams*. It's because of how much he suffered and because he was not allowed a chance to fulfill his potential. What he would/could have done without injury is pure speculation, we are just sad/upset that he never got the chance to build on his maiden Slam.

Coria is very different from Del Potro; his injury was far more serious/career ending, but he also never had the potential Del Potro did. He was a brilliant player, especially on clay - Rome final vs Nadal remains the best clay match I've ever seen -, but he didn't have the mind of a champion, RG 2004 being the prime example. I'd have have liked to see Coria continue his career and the way it ended was very sad indeed, I can imagine the pain it caused his fans.

The Ferrer bashing has nothing to do with him being ranked ahead of JMDP or any other player; Monaco is levelled the same accusations and he's ranked outside the top 10 atm.

That's also a flawed argument... The Big 3 also get "weak draws" constantly. And even with that, they don't always win (cf Nadal/Rosol, Federer/Berych this year).

What's more, except right now, when Ferrer gets weaker draws because of Nadal's injury, he is n°5, so basically he doesn't get better draws than the players who are right behind him.

Indeed they do. The overly protective seeding system in tennis, coupled with the lack of depth in the field and also with the ATP's quest to maintain the status quo so tennis can be promoted to the masses as a consistent narrative ensures that top 8/10 players tend to get very easy draws before facing each other, bar a few exceptions.

This is why vulturing is such a dire problem; in a deep field and/or with a non-overly protective seeding system, these anamolies would be corrected in time. But as it stands, as soon as a player can get a high enough ranking, they can coast on easy draws to make it much easier to keep it.

Of course you do, therefore your continual trolling and failing to understand how the rankings actually work. Wah, wah, wah if these players you are always going on about Tsonga, del Potro and Berdych are better then prove it consistently throughout the year and they'd be ranked higher.

Like Jorge Mendes you are full of it, hence the reference.

http://cdn.ebaumsworld.com/picture/Rizzor/beatingadeadhorse.gif

They don't have to prove they are better. They are better, it's not particularly debatable. They are more talented and have achieved more in big tournaments. Regardless of rankings, when the Slams roll around every bookmaker will have Del Potro as the 5th favorite (4th at Roland Garros) like they did this year, and Tsonga and Berdych as 6th and 7th (Tsonga not in RG), because regardless of rankings no one with any sort of credibility (like people who have to put their money where their mouth is) doubts that Del Potro > Tsonga/Berdych > Ferrer, in every way - be it current ability, future potential, etc...

The rankings are important to determine seedings, they are often a poor indication of a player's relative level because they can easily be abused. It's a similar ranking system to the one that elevated absolute mugs like Wozniacki and co. to #1 in the WTA, luckily enough the ATP top players have been strong and consistent enough to avoid abominations like that.

So if Ferrer won 1 slam, you agree his career would be far superior to Delpo's?
Even as Delpo fan I have to say that winning one slam doesn't give you credit forever. IMO, one slam is not more worth than for example 10 masters series and 10 500's.

Yes, he 'only' needs to win one Slam for his career to be superior. 'Only'.

This is not Murray we're talking about though; these scenarios made sense in Murray-Delpo discussions before Murray won a Slam because Murray was a player with the potential to win one. Ferrer isn't; even if he got the same soft path Murray got in the USO from QF on, he'd still not win a Slam.

duong
09-21-2012, 02:23 PM
This is BS, especially as far as Del Potro is concerned. He has exceeded his seeding in three of the five most important tournaments this season - seeded #9 at AO and RG, reached QF, seeded #8 at OG, won the bronze medal - and lived up to it in the other two. He also exceeded his seeding in most Masters tournaments.

the only player ranked higher than him that he defeated this year in grand slams and masters 1000 tournaments was Berdych in Roland-Garros.

Besides, Del Potro is number 7 in the Race. Saying that he exceeded his seed by reaching QF when he's number 9 is poor mean trolling :lol:

Mark Lenders
09-21-2012, 02:39 PM
the only player ranked higher than him that he defeated this year in grand slams and masters 1000 tournaments was Berdych in Roland-Garros.

Besides, Del Potro is number 7 in the Race. Saying that he exceeded his seed by reaching QF when he's number 9 is poor mean trolling :lol:

:facepalm:

I'm going to explain this in a way even a 4-year-old would understand.

Australian Open - Del Potro was the #11 seed. He reached the quarter finals. Now is the tricky bit: the quarter finals feature 8 players, meaning that Del Potro got to the last 8 of this tournament while being the #11 seed. Conclusion: he exceeded his seeding.

Roland Garros - Del Potro was the #9 seed. He reached the quarter finals. Nothing has changed since AO, the quarterfinals still only feature 8 players. Del Potro got there as #9. Conclusion again: he exceeded his seeding.

Olympic Games - he was seeded #8, and won the bronze medal for third place. Exceeded his seeding.


Del Potro is actualy #6 in the race, but seedings aren't determined by the race.

Action Jackson
09-21-2012, 02:40 PM
They don't have to prove they are better. They are better, it's not particularly debatable. They are more talented and have achieved more in big tournaments. Regardless of rankings, when the Slams roll around every bookmaker will have Del Potro as the 5th favorite (4th at Roland Garros) like they did this year, and Tsonga and Berdych as 6th and 7th (Tsonga not in RG), because regardless of rankings no one with any sort of credibility (like people who have to put their money where their mouth is) doubts that Del Potro > Tsonga/Berdych > Ferrer, in every way - be it current ability, future potential, etc...

No, they have to do better during the year. Potential counts for nowt.

Why are you going with this still? Your arguments are poor and they've been proven to be fraudulent among the clear evidence that proves Ferrer isn't even close to being a vulture. Mendes, I remember you crying like the baby who gets no milk about Ferrer playing Båstad. Told you numerous times that he wouldn't get any points for winning the event, but you still don't get it.

So create a ranking system which favours your players then? Potential doesn't get ranked, it's like goodwill in the business community there is no monetary or rating value to it.

System is abused your favourites have a higher percentage of their points from optionals than Ferrer, yet you still want to beat the horse that is dead.

Cereal Killer
09-21-2012, 02:44 PM
http://i.imgur.com/x35MO.gif

duong
09-21-2012, 02:48 PM
:facepalm:

I'm going to explain this in a way even a 4-year-old would understand.

Australian Open - Del Potro was the #11 seed. He reached the quarter finals. Now is the tricky bit: the quarter finals feature 8 players, meaning that Del Potro got to the last 8 of this tournament while being the #11 seed. Conclusion: he exceeded his seeding.

Roland Garros - Del Potro was the #9 seed. He reached the quarter finals. Nothing has changed since AO, the quarterfinals still only feature 8 players. Del Potro got there as #9. Conclusion again: he exceeded his seeding.

Olympic Games - he was seeded #8, and won the bronze medal for third place. Exceeded his seeding.


Del Potro is actualy #6 in the race, but seedings aren't determined by the race.

do you really believe the people who speak to you are just idiots and can't understand the perfection of your arguments ?

Sorry for spending 5 minutes of your time to write such useless shit :lol:

Mark Lenders
09-21-2012, 02:48 PM
No, they have to do better during the year. Potential counts for nowt.

Why are you going with this still? Your arguments are poor and they've been proven to be fraudulent among the clear evidence that proves Ferrer isn't even close to being a vulture. Mendes, I remember you crying like the baby who gets no milk about Ferrer playing Båstad. Told you numerous times that he wouldn't get any points for winning the event, but you still don't get it.

So create a ranking system which favours your players then? Potential doesn't get ranked, it's like goodwill in the business community there is no value to it.

System is abused your favourites have a higher percentage of their points from optionals than Ferrer, yet you still want to beat the horse that is dead.

You were wrong though, and still are. It was either due to premedidated ignorance or simply a poor grasp of Maths and Logics, hopefully the latter. I've explained that somewhere in this thread I think, it's really not that hard to understand - vulturing isn't limited to immediate gains, but long term gains as well.

As for the rest, it has been proved that Ferrer is a vulture, you simply chose to ignore the overwhelming evidence. The fields of the non mandatory tournaments Ferrer participated in don't really open up much room for discussion.


do you really believe the people who speak to you are just idiots and can't understand the perfection of your arguments ?

Sorry for spending 5 minutes of your time to write such useless shit :lol:

No. I always assume the people I'm having a discussion/debate with are intelligent and knowledgeable until evidence to the contrary. That post of yours was this so-called evidence to the contrary. Seedings are not determined by the race ranking; when a player ranked below #8 reaches QF he's exceeding his seeding.

Cereal Killer
09-21-2012, 02:52 PM
do you really believe the people who speak to you are just idiots and can't understand the perfection of your arguments ?

Sorry for spending 5 minutes of your time to write such useless shit :lol:

The better question is why you keep having this discussion with him. You can bring out as many stats and facts as you want, he isn't going to agree with you. He's just that ignorant. Yet, here you are... So, he has a point.

stebs
09-21-2012, 02:55 PM
First of all, the definition from which I started was the one people (probably a stupid guy from from this forum) had put on Wikipedia, and this definition clearly referred to ranking points (be careful I destroyed the additional elements which you can see in the version before) :

And then in the same Wikipedia page, they, like the typical Lenders of this forum, completed their theory by the other points which are connected by the Lenders and even many others who have no bad intentions like you in this forum :


But please note that this is not a separate definition but there is clearly a causality link between both.
I'm talking about usage, not about a concept I accept as applicable to anything. Whether it is or not is a matter for reasoned argument which, largely, has been accomplished in this thread (namely that most of the dogmas were false).


you specifically said that the point #2 was precisely aimed to get ranking points.
I'm aware of the link. The major difference between those points is attitude. The idea of 'vulture' as one who purposively attempts to inflate ones ranking by that method is the damaging one. A player could satisfy the #1 definition by coincidence. Consider a #10ish player entering a Grand Slam and having upsets and a favourable draw allow him to reach a GS final without playing anybody in the top 10. That would satisfy the condition #1 without satisfying condition #2.

In ogbg's graph which is interesting, the result that top-4 top-8 players meet more often top-players than the others is mostly a consequence of the fact that they go far in tournaments. It's not like in the "vulture" theory that less good players play more often lower ranked players than them with the purpose of improving their ranking, which is the whole point of the "vulturing" theory.
:yeah: I totally agree. The graph is still elucidatory because of the expected value to compare with. Certainly though, I'm not in the dark about the cause of that distribution.

When you speak of a spectrum, inevitably you imply that well, they are not complete vultures but still a little bit and there's a "spectrum of vulturing". You can say all the "I am not suggesting those whose numbers fall on one side of that line are 'vultures'" that you want, inevitably these interpretations do come ... and there was no surprise : you inevitably had the reactions "Haas, Querrey, Granollers are the biggest vultures" !
:confused: Are you talking about me, or others? I certainly did not have the reaction that those players were the biggest vultures. Notably, I realise that the graph relates ONLY to my definition #1, which as you pointed out, doesn;t capture a quite VITAL element of the overall idea of a vulture. There IS a spectrum of vulturing if it were defined as per #1 only, that much can hardly be denied (since the whole meaning of it is constituted by facts and not conjectured attitudes and purposes). If you want to rename that, it's okay, but you're wrong if you think I hadn't realised that there is no necessary connection between that and the more pejorative #2.

for the others it's marginal (and we could talk in great lengths whether the points are easier to get in ATP250 tournaments or Masters 1000 tournaments or Grand slams, which is actually an interesting topic but which doesn't have an obvious result as some think)
I'd like to hear what you have to say about it. Other than, 'it massively depends on the level of the player', I can't think of much.


the problem is that you say that you don't accept the connotations however you accept the 3 different definitions (even there was a fourth one in your first post) which all are related to points which are put in connection/connotation in the theory, which means imo that you give credit to these connections/connotations.
Well that's a shame if I give credit to it. I only 'accept' those definitions as really implied by the usage of the word by others. I could also give a list of implied meanings for the term 'mug' on this site which I accept as accurately reflecting meaning in usage. That doesn't mean I accept that the word is applied correctly. It doesn't even mean that I accept the word can, in principle, be applied correctly. It's only exposition, not validation. I also accept various meanings of the word 'God', that doesn't mean I give credit to it or believe in its applicability.

Mark Lenders
09-21-2012, 02:58 PM
The better question is why you keep having this discussion with him. You can bring out as many stats and facts as you want, he isn't going to agree with you. He's just that ignorant. But still here you are, having this discussion. So, he has a point.

Yeah, if he wants to argue against something that has been established beyond reasonable doubt (Ferrer and Monaco being vultures), bringing up relevant facts and stats would be a good idea for sure.

stebs
09-21-2012, 03:02 PM
Yeah, if he wants to argue against something that has been established beyond reasonable doubt (Ferrer and Monaco being vultures), bring up relevant facts and stats would be a good idea for sure.

:secret: Try the first post of the thread (and many afterwards).

Cereal Killer
09-21-2012, 03:09 PM
Yeah, if he wants to argue against something that has been established beyond reasonable doubt (Ferrer and Monaco being vultures), bring up relevant facts and stats would be a good idea for sure.

Well, you don't accept any counter arguments, so I would've concluded long ago that there is no point in having this discussion in the first place. They brought up some stats, but you either ignored them or diminished their importance. Please remember though, your opinion is not fact, it's just that, one of many opinions. Might be helpful for your future in the real world. Your hate of Ferrer is ridiculous at best.

I never understood why people have to hate on professional athletes anyway. Dislike for someone's style of play is one thing, but you are outright disrespectful.

If anything is established here it's that you are intolerant.

duong
09-21-2012, 03:20 PM
I'm aware of the link. The major difference between those points is attitude. The idea of 'vulture' as one who purposively attempts to inflate ones ranking by that method is the damaging one. A player could satisfy the #1 definition by coincidence. Consider a #10ish player entering a Grand Slam and having upsets and a favourable draw allow him to reach a GS final without playing anybody in the top 10. That would satisfy the condition #1 without satisfying condition #2.

well OK but that definition included in #1 alone is not at all the definition which Lenders and Wikipedia give, and it's that one which I wanted to fight.

Yes, it's quite like when some people might say that Gasquet did "vulture" his Toronto points or Berdych did "vulture" his points in Bercy 2005 (I would call it "lucky" rather than "vulture" personally)

But well the ranking of a player at one moment (based on last 52 weeks) doesn't necessarily reflect his level in that tournament, I've too often seen the opposite, then I'm not that interested in such comparisons.

Well that's a shame if I give credit to it. I only 'accept' those definitions as really implied by the usage of the word by others.

the problem is that the definitions which you all consider as "separate" yourself are all included in the "vulture concept" of Lenders' and Wikipedia's and are connected with each other there.

I think that by doing that, you and Sophitia sort of gave some sort of confirmation to the theory.

I didn't want to make a dictionary of the word "vulture" : I wanted to talk about one topic, and I prefer talking of separate topics in separate places for less confusion.

I know the power of theories : maybe you heard of "story-telling" but making a whole story always enters the mind much more easily than a more "scientific" analysis.

Mark Lenders
09-21-2012, 03:20 PM
Well, you don't accept any counter arguments, so I would've concluded long ago that there is no point in having this discussion in the first place. They brought up some stats, but you either ignored them or diminished their importance. Please remember though, your opinion is not fact, it's just that, one of many opinions. Might be helpful to remember that once in awhile for your future in the real world. Your hate of Ferrer is ridiculous at best.

I never understood why people have to hate on professional athletes anyway. Dislike for someone's style of play is one thing, but you are outright disrespectful.

Thanks for the concern, but it's really not needed. I'm more than open to different opinions, the field where I'm currently studying actually kinda requires that.

What I don't have time for is manipulated evidence/stats. All those stats prove nothing because they include mandatory tournaments: you can't vulture mandatory tournaments, at best you can reap the fruits of your vulturing by getting easy draws due to your inflated ranking. Bring up stats about quality/ranking of opponents or field level in non mandatory events and then we're talking.

These 'stats' presented are merely throwing shade and avoiding the subject altogether. The ranking of opponents faced in Slams and Masters is absolutely irrelevant because those tournaments are compulsory, you have to participate in them. Vulturing implies a choice ie selecting tournaments with weak fields to collect easy points.

duong
09-21-2012, 03:27 PM
you can't vulture mandatory tournaments, at best you can reap the fruits of your vulturing by getting easy draws due to your inflated ranking.

The ranking of opponents faced in Slams and Masters is absolutely irrelevant because those tournaments are compulsory, you have to participate in them. Vulturing implies a choice ie selecting tournaments with weak fields to collect easy points.

you see, Stebs ?

Your point #1 was not the topic discussed with Lenders and the Wikipedia saboteur.

Sanya
09-21-2012, 03:32 PM
If Ferrer finishes playing and winning 250 tournaments, Lenders just will change definition "vulturing" as needed for David still belongs to it. :lol:

Thunderfish8
09-21-2012, 03:35 PM
:facepalm:

I'm going to explain this in a way even a 4-year-old would understand.

Australian Open - Del Potro was the #11 seed. He reached the quarter finals. Now is the tricky bit: the quarter finals feature 8 players, meaning that Del Potro got to the last 8 of this tournament while being the #11 seed. Conclusion: he exceeded his seeding.

Roland Garros - Del Potro was the #9 seed. He reached the quarter finals. Nothing has changed since AO, the quarterfinals still only feature 8 players. Del Potro got there as #9. Conclusion again: he exceeded his seeding.

Olympic Games - he was seeded #8, and won the bronze medal for third place. Exceeded his seeding.


Del Potro is actualy #6 in the race, but seedings aren't determined by the race.

And now I'm going to explain this in a way that only brain-damaged infants could not understand.

This is not a discussion about which player is better overall or has more potential, or has had a better career. This is a discussion about why Ferrer is and should be ranked higher than the likes of Tsonga, Berdych, and ESPECIALLY Del Potro.
Now this might throw you a bit, but I think you may be able to handle it... I'm going to use basic human logic, and I want you to just try to hang on for as long as you can.
A player is supposed to beat players who are ranked lower than he is. Doing this is nothing special, and failing to do so is failing to meet expectations. So now let's look at the archives of Del Potro's Australian Open matches. Sure, he reached the quarterfinals, but he did nothing out of the ordinary to get there. He simply knocked off players outside the top 40 several times. Then let's look at the French Open. Del Potro beat Berdych to reach the quarterfinals, however, given their previous matches and recent runs of form, Del Potro was the clear favorite to win that match. So again, not doing anything super special.
And now let's look at a tournament like Indian Wells. He also made the QF as a non-top8 seed. Except just like the AO, he did nothing special to get there. He simply beat the players who he was supposed to beat.

I could go on forever, but what you need to realize is that you are simply looking at the most basic information. You are not using any critical thinking skills whatsoever. In fact, when you look at the big picture and look at all the small details, all your arguments get turned upside down.

And you're right, Delpo is #6 in the race.
But oddly enough, Ferrer is #5 and is not really within reach at the moment. Even more strange is the fact that had Delpo been seeded #6 all year, he would not have really exceeded expectations anywhere except the Olympics. In fact, he would hae failed to meet expectations several times throughout the year.

So maybe you should do a little less bickering and a little more making up your fucking mind about what you're trying to say.

stebs
09-21-2012, 04:30 PM
you see, Stebs ?

Your point #1 was not the topic discussed with Lenders and the Wikipedia saboteur.

I see that, it was just another thing which was often referred to as 'vulturing' by others (in many Ferrer match threads in GS for example). If you're telling me to stay specifically on topic, that's okay.

MaxPower
09-21-2012, 04:57 PM
Ferrer and Monaco shall be called vultures until the end of their careers. It's brilliant and stats can't change that.

http://static.fjcdn.com/gifs/Sloth_f3b828_743517.gif

Singularity
09-21-2012, 05:53 PM
Thanks for the concern, but it's really not needed. I'm more than open to different opinions, the field where I'm currently studying actually kinda requires that.

What I don't have time for is manipulated evidence/stats. All those stats prove nothing because they include mandatory tournaments: you can't vulture mandatory tournaments, at best you can reap the fruits of your vulturing by getting easy draws due to your inflated ranking. Bring up stats about quality/ranking of opponents or field level in non mandatory events and then we're talking.

These 'stats' presented are merely throwing shade and avoiding the subject altogether. The ranking of opponents faced in Slams and Masters is absolutely irrelevant because those tournaments are compulsory, you have to participate in them. Vulturing implies a choice ie selecting tournaments with weak fields to collect easy points.
OK, lets agree Ferrer is a vulture in the sense he voluntarily participates in "weak draws". Now lets look at his performance in events with stronger draws, where he shared a 5-8 seeding with Del Potro/Tipsarevic, Berdych and Tsonga.

How has he performed relative to these players, this year?

Did he therefore deserve his 5-8 seeding?

Matt01
09-21-2012, 06:23 PM
Ferrer and Monaco shall be called vultures until the end of their careers. It's brilliant and stats can't change that.


Better to be a vulture than a fluke like the player in your avatar ;)

Cereal Killer
09-21-2012, 06:59 PM
OK, lets agree Ferrer is a vulture in the sense he voluntarily participates in "weak draws". Now lets look at his performance in events with stronger draws, where he shared a 5-8 seeding with Del Potro/Tipsarevic, Berdych and Tsonga.

How has he performed relative to these players, this year?

Did he therefore deserve his 5-8 seeding?

In his opinion, Ferrer got his slam results because of his seeding. With better seeding comes an easier draw that allows him to keep his ranking which he only got due to his 'vulturing'.

GOATsol
09-21-2012, 07:22 PM
I think Lenders is wrong on this one.

Tag
09-21-2012, 08:11 PM
vultures are a disgusting stain on tennis' reputation

slow court loving ATP and top 4 domination not helping matters

bad era for tennis :o

Tag
09-21-2012, 08:12 PM
while i'm at it, federer and nadal are the worst of the lot

basel, halle and barcelona: proud tournnaments reduced to meaningless exos :o

abraxas21
09-21-2012, 08:14 PM
vultures are a disgusting stain on tennis' reputation

slow court loving ATP and top 4 domination not helping matters

bad era for tennis :o

exactly

then again, a vulture does what a vulture does. you can't blame them for their nature. the fault lies on the ones who feed them and to that extent the ATP is the biggest culprit.

156mphserve
09-21-2012, 08:26 PM
Ranking system should be changed so that you only get ranking points for beating Federer, Nadal, or Djokovic. That would solve this vulture nonsense

Thunderfish8
09-21-2012, 08:39 PM
You guys are still missing the point here. There are other threads that discuss which of these four guys have had the best career or the most potential. What we should be thinking about is whether or not Ferrer is a vulture.

Now, the main argument seems to be that he plays in weak draws a few times throughout the year, but when it comes to big events, he can't pull his weight.
So let's get some legitimate comparisons.

I'm going to compare the results of Ferrer, Tsonga, Berdych, and Del Potro for all the GS and Masters 1000 tournaments this year + the Olympics. Whomever achieved the best result in each Masters 1000 / Olympics gets 4 points, the second best gets 3, then third gets 2 and last gets 1. Points are doubled for grand slams.

Australian Open: Ferrer-QF ; Tsonga-R16 ; Berdych QF ; Del Potro-QF
Indian Wells: Ferrer-R32 ; Tsonga-R16 ; Berdych-R16 ; Del Potro-QF
Miami*: Ferrer-QF ; Tsonga-QF ; Berdych-R32 ; Del Potro-R16
Monte-Carlo: they did not all play there so no points for this event... we're only counting mandatory events
Madrid**: Ferrer-QF ; Tsonga-R16 ; Berdych-RUP ; Del Potro-SF
Rome***: Ferrer-SF ; Tsonga-QF ; Berdych-QF ; Del Potro-R16
Roland Garros****: Ferrer-SF ; Tsonga-QF ; Berdych-R16 ; Del Potro-QF
Wimbledon*****: Ferrer-QF ; Tsonga-SF ; Berdych-R128 ; Del Potro-R16
London Olympics: Ferrer-R16 ; Tsonga-QF ; Berdych-R64 ; Del Potro-Bronze
Canada: Ferrer did not play... not comparable, plus the other three guys all lost early after tiring olympics campaign
Cincinnati: Tsonga did not play... not comparable
US Open: Ferrer-SF ; Tsonga-R64 ; Berdych-SF ; Del Potro-QF

* Miami R16: Ferrer def. Del Potro 63 63
** Madrid SF: Berdych def. Del Potro 76 76
*** Rome R16: Tsonga def. Del Potro 64 61
**** Roland Garros R16: Del Potro def. Berdych 76 16 63 75
***** Wimbledon R16: Ferrer def. Del Potro 63 62 63

So the totals are:
Ferrer - 43
Tsonga - 31
Berdych - 31
Del Potro - 38

As we can see, Ferrer has clearly had a more solid year at the big events than the other three guys.
In addition, I think it is worth pointing out that in big events this year, Del Potro is 1-4 against the other three guys.
I think if these four are the last WTF qualifiers, Del Potro's poor record against these guys at the big events will be exposed, not to mention he hasn't exactly beaten Federer or Djokovic this year at big events barring the Olympics (has not played Nadal or Murray this season :cuckoo:). Add 4 losses against Federer this year at big events, and 2 against Djokovic and add his win over Djokovic in London and his record thus far in the season vs. top 7 opponents AT MAJOR EVENTS is 2-10. I think he belongs right where he is at #8.

Since I'm going into vs. other top 8 players this year (assuming Del Potro as #8 the entire year even though he was 9 for a large portion):
Ferrer = 3-8 = 27.3%
Tsonga = 1-5 = 16.7%
Berdych = 2-6 = 25%
Del Potro = 2-10 = 16.7%

Keep in mind that this stat is ONLY FOR GRAND SLAMS, MASTERS 1000 AND OLYMPICS level tournaments. Smaller tournaments don't count because Mark Lenders says they shouldn't. You're getting what you want Lenders ;)

So against other top 8 players in big events, Ferrer leads the pack in both wins and percentage (3 wins, 27.3%). Berdych and Del Potro are tied for second in wins but Berdych edges out Del Potro in percentage won (Both 2 wins, Berdych has 25%, Delpo has 16.7%). Tsonga and Del Potro are tied in last for percentage, but Del Potro has one more win than Tsonga (Both 16.7%, Delpo has 2 wins, Tsonga has 1).

So for the first stat way back towards the beginning of this post
1st - Ferrer
2nd - Del Potro
3rd - Berdych
3rd - Tsonga

and for Win % against other top 8 players:
1st - Ferrer
2nd - Berdych (tied with Delpo for wins but larger %)
3rd - Del Potro (tied with Tsonga for % but more wins)
4th - Tsonga

It is emphatically clear that Ferrer has performed the best of these four guys throughout the year and it is why he is ranked #5. Del Potro is a distant second, but that is why he is #6 in the race and why he will most likely finish the year at #7 or 6. Berdych has simply had more solid results than Tsonga this year and the only thing keeping them tied in the first statistic is Tsonga's lucky draw/Berdych sucking dick at Wimbledon. This explains why Berdych is #7 in the race while Tsonga is sitting on #8.

So now that I've gotten through all this... Would somebody be kind enough to explain to me why the fuck Delpo is more of a favorite than Ferrer to win big tournaments??? Or for that matter, why the fuck should he be ranked #5 instead of Ferrer???

Anybody got any ideas? Cuz I think the math speaks for itself. And just so we don't run into this issue with Lenders, even if I doubled points for the Olympics giving it Grand Slam prestige, Del Potro would still fall behind Ferrer.

These are all facts. There is no point in arguing facts because they have been proven to be true. Arguing that facts are false with an opinion is like trying to cut pure diamond with a scissor. You can keep trying, but soon enough you have to realize that it's not going to work.

Sanya
09-21-2012, 08:50 PM
Numbers speak for themselves. Thunderfish8, great attempt, but if you wait now for Ferrerhaters to agree with you now, I think you will be disappointed. :)

Singularity
09-21-2012, 09:03 PM
In his opinion, Ferrer got his slam results because of his seeding. With better seeding comes an easier draw that allows him to keep his ranking which he only got due to his 'vulturing'.
I think that's irrelevant. If he lives up to his seeding then he deserves his seeding. He has no seeding advantage over any of the other players ranked 5-8, who are in competition with him.

Yolita
09-21-2012, 09:30 PM
You guys are still missing the point here. There are other threads that discuss which of these four guys have had the best career or the most potential. What we should be thinking about is whether or not Ferrer is a vulture.

Now, the main argument seems to be that he plays in weak draws a few times throughout the year, but when it comes to big events, he can't pull his weight.
So let's get some legitimate comparisons.

I'm going to compare the results of Ferrer, Tsonga, Berdych, and Del Potro for all the GS and Masters 1000 tournaments this year + the Olympics. Whomever achieved the best result in each Masters 1000 / Olympics gets 4 points, the second best gets 3, then third gets 2 and last gets 1. Points are doubled for grand slams.

Australian Open: Ferrer-QF ; Tsonga-R16 ; Berdych QF ; Del Potro-QF
Indian Wells: Ferrer-R32 ; Tsonga-R16 ; Berdych-R16 ; Del Potro-QF
Miami*: Ferrer-QF ; Tsonga-QF ; Berdych-R32 ; Del Potro-R16
Monte-Carlo: they did not all play there so no points for this event... we're only counting mandatory events
Madrid**: Ferrer-QF ; Tsonga-R16 ; Berdych-RUP ; Del Potro-SF
Rome***: Ferrer-SF ; Tsonga-QF ; Berdych-QF ; Del Potro-R16
Roland Garros****: Ferrer-SF ; Tsonga-QF ; Berdych-R16 ; Del Potro-QF
Wimbledon*****: Ferrer-QF ; Tsonga-SF ; Berdych-R128 ; Del Potro-R16
London Olympics: Ferrer-R16 ; Tsonga-QF ; Berdych-R64 ; Del Potro-Bronze
Canada: Ferrer did not play... not comparable, plus the other three guys all lost early after tiring olympics campaign
Cincinnati: Tsonga did not play... not comparable
US Open: Ferrer-SF ; Tsonga-R64 ; Berdych-SF ; Del Potro-QF

* Miami R16: Ferrer def. Del Potro 63 63
** Madrid SF: Berdych def. Del Potro 76 76
*** Rome R16: Tsonga def. Del Potro 64 61
**** Roland Garros R16: Del Potro def. Berdych 76 16 63 75
***** Wimbledon R16: Ferrer def. Del Potro 63 62 63

So the totals are:
Ferrer - 43
Tsonga - 31
Berdych - 31
Del Potro - 38

As we can see, Ferrer has clearly had a more solid year at the big events than the other three guys.
In addition, I think it is worth pointing out that in big events this year, Del Potro is 1-4 against the other three guys.
I think if these four are the last WTF qualifiers, Del Potro's poor record against these guys at the big events will be exposed, not to mention he hasn't exactly beaten Federer or Djokovic this year at big events barring the Olympics (has not played Nadal or Murray this season :cuckoo:). Add 4 losses against Federer this year at big events, and 2 against Djokovic and add his win over Djokovic in London and his record thus far in the season vs. top 7 opponents AT MAJOR EVENTS is 2-10. I think he belongs right where he is at #8.

Since I'm going into vs. other top 8 players this year (assuming Del Potro as #8 the entire year even though he was 9 for a large portion):
Ferrer = 3-8 = 27.3%
Tsonga = 1-5 = 16.7%
Berdych = 2-6 = 25%
Del Potro = 2-10 = 16.7%

Keep in mind that this stat is ONLY FOR GRAND SLAMS, MASTERS 1000 AND OLYMPICS level tournaments. Smaller tournaments don't count because Mark Lenders says they shouldn't. You're getting what you want Lenders ;)

So against other top 8 players in big events, Ferrer leads the pack in both wins and percentage (3 wins, 27.3%). Berdych and Del Potro are tied for second in wins but Berdych edges out Del Potro in percentage won (Both 2 wins, Berdych has 25%, Delpo has 16.7%). Tsonga and Del Potro are tied in last for percentage, but Del Potro has one more win than Tsonga (Both 16.7%, Delpo has 2 wins, Tsonga has 1).

So for the first stat way back towards the beginning of this post
1st - Ferrer
2nd - Del Potro
3rd - Berdych
3rd - Tsonga

and for Win % against other top 8 players:
1st - Ferrer
2nd - Berdych (tied with Delpo for wins but larger %)
3rd - Del Potro (tied with Tsonga for % but more wins)
4th - Tsonga

It is emphatically clear that Ferrer has performed the best of these four guys throughout the year and it is why he is ranked #5. Del Potro is a distant second, but that is why he is #6 in the race and why he will most likely finish the year at #7 or 6. Berdych has simply had more solid results than Tsonga this year and the only thing keeping them tied in the first statistic is Tsonga's lucky draw/Berdych sucking dick at Wimbledon. This explains why Berdych is #7 in the race while Tsonga is sitting on #8.

So now that I've gotten through all this... Would somebody be kind enough to explain to me why the fuck Delpo is more of a favorite than Ferrer to win big tournaments??? Or for that matter, why the fuck should he be ranked #5 instead of Ferrer???

Anybody got any ideas? Cuz I think the math speaks for itself. And just so we don't run into this issue with Lenders, even if I doubled points for the Olympics giving it Grand Slam prestige, Del Potro would still fall behind Ferrer.

These are all facts. There is no point in arguing facts because they have been proven to be true. Arguing that facts are false with an opinion is like trying to cut pure diamond with a scissor. You can keep trying, but soon enough you have to realize that it's not going to work.

Excellent post. :worship:

Sophitia36
09-21-2012, 09:39 PM
I think that's irrelevant. If he lives up to his seeding then he deserves his seeding. He has no seeding advantage over any of the other players ranked 5-8, who are in competition with him.

Of course it's irrelevant. That's more or less what I said earlier. It's true to say that Ferrer gets good draws because of his seeding, but this rule is true for everyone else, it's not like he's getting preferential treatment.

I don't know the ranking system well enough to have an opinion on whether it should be changed. However, I do think people who complain about the way draws are organised have a point.
I don't know, maybe it would be worse to have a real, random draw... It would certainly create awkward situations with favourites facing each other very early on, or draws being really unbalanced... But at the same time, do we really want to see always the same people in the SF and finals? I don't think I do.
Well, it's late anyway, I may be talking complete nonsense, I should probably go to bed now :o

saviopr
09-21-2012, 09:58 PM
Australian Open: Ferrer-QF ; Tsonga-R16 ; Berdych QF ; Del Potro-QF
Indian Wells: Ferrer-R32 ; Tsonga-R16 ; Berdych-R16 ; Del Potro-QF
Miami*: Ferrer-QF ; Tsonga-QF ; Berdych-R32 ; Del Potro-R16
Monte-Carlo: they did not all play there so no points for this event... we're only counting mandatory events
Madrid**: Ferrer-QF ; Tsonga-R16 ; Berdych-RUP ; Del Potro-SF
Rome***: Ferrer-SF ; Tsonga-QF ; Berdych-QF ; Del Potro-R16
Roland Garros****: Ferrer-SF ; Tsonga-QF ; Berdych-R16 ; Del Potro-QF
Wimbledon*****: Ferrer-QF ; Tsonga-SF ; Berdych-R128 ; Del Potro-R16
London Olympics: Ferrer-R16 ; Tsonga-QF ; Berdych-R64 ; Del Potro-Bronze
Canada: Ferrer did not play... not comparable, plus the other three guys all lost early after tiring olympics campaign
Cincinnati: Tsonga did not play... not comparable
US Open: Ferrer-SF ; Tsonga-R64 ; Berdych-SF ; Del Potro-QF

So the totals are:
Ferrer - 43
Tsonga - 31
Berdych - 31
Del Potro - 38

Since I'm going into vs. other top 8 players this year (assuming Del Potro as #8 the entire year even though he was 9 for a large portion):
Ferrer = 3-8 = 27.3%
Tsonga = 1-5 = 16.7%
Berdych = 2-6 = 25%
Del Potro = 2-10 = 16.7%

So for the first stat way back towards the beginning of this post
1st - Ferrer
2nd - Del Potro
3rd - Berdych
3rd - Tsonga

and for Win % against other top 8 players:
1st - Ferrer
2nd - Berdych (tied with Delpo for wins but larger %)
3rd - Del Potro (tied with Tsonga for % but more wins)
4th - Tsonga


Perfect. :worship:

TigerTim
09-21-2012, 10:24 PM
Ranking system should be changed so that you only get ranking points for beating Federer, Nadal, or Djokovic. That would solve this vulture nonsense

yes

20pts for Federer
15pts for Nadal
12pts for Djokovic
Slam Bonus 10pts

now lets see......

1.Murray - 81pts
2.Nadal - 76pts
3.Djokovic - 65pts
4.Federer - 49pts
5.Berdych 30pts
6.Rosol - 25pts
7=.Tsonga - 20pts
Isner - 20pts
Roddick - 20pts
Haas - 20pts
11=.Verdasco - 15pts
Kholischrieber - 15pts
Monfils - 15pts
14=.Isner - 12pts
Tipsarevic - 12pts
Del Potro - 12pts

kinski76
09-21-2012, 10:28 PM
You guys are still missing the point here. There are other threads that discuss which of these four guys have had the best career or the most potential. What we should be thinking about is whether or not Ferrer is a vulture.

Now, the main argument seems to be that he plays in weak draws a few times throughout the year, but when it comes to big events, he can't pull his weight.
So let's get some legitimate comparisons.

I'm going to compare the results of Ferrer, Tsonga, Berdych, and Del Potro for all the GS and Masters 1000 tournaments this year + the Olympics. Whomever achieved the best result in each Masters 1000 / Olympics gets 4 points, the second best gets 3, then third gets 2 and last gets 1. Points are doubled for grand slams.

Australian Open: Ferrer-QF ; Tsonga-R16 ; Berdych QF ; Del Potro-QF
Indian Wells: Ferrer-R32 ; Tsonga-R16 ; Berdych-R16 ; Del Potro-QF
Miami*: Ferrer-QF ; Tsonga-QF ; Berdych-R32 ; Del Potro-R16
Monte-Carlo: they did not all play there so no points for this event... we're only counting mandatory events
Madrid**: Ferrer-QF ; Tsonga-R16 ; Berdych-RUP ; Del Potro-SF
Rome***: Ferrer-SF ; Tsonga-QF ; Berdych-QF ; Del Potro-R16
Roland Garros****: Ferrer-SF ; Tsonga-QF ; Berdych-R16 ; Del Potro-QF
Wimbledon*****: Ferrer-QF ; Tsonga-SF ; Berdych-R128 ; Del Potro-R16
London Olympics: Ferrer-R16 ; Tsonga-QF ; Berdych-R64 ; Del Potro-Bronze
Canada: Ferrer did not play... not comparable, plus the other three guys all lost early after tiring olympics campaign
Cincinnati: Tsonga did not play... not comparable
US Open: Ferrer-SF ; Tsonga-R64 ; Berdych-SF ; Del Potro-QF

* Miami R16: Ferrer def. Del Potro 63 63
** Madrid SF: Berdych def. Del Potro 76 76
*** Rome R16: Tsonga def. Del Potro 64 61
**** Roland Garros R16: Del Potro def. Berdych 76 16 63 75
***** Wimbledon R16: Ferrer def. Del Potro 63 62 63

So the totals are:
Ferrer - 43
Tsonga - 31
Berdych - 31
Del Potro - 38

As we can see, Ferrer has clearly had a more solid year at the big events than the other three guys.
In addition, I think it is worth pointing out that in big events this year, Del Potro is 1-4 against the other three guys.
I think if these four are the last WTF qualifiers, Del Potro's poor record against these guys at the big events will be exposed, not to mention he hasn't exactly beaten Federer or Djokovic this year at big events barring the Olympics (has not played Nadal or Murray this season :cuckoo:). Add 4 losses against Federer this year at big events, and 2 against Djokovic and add his win over Djokovic in London and his record thus far in the season vs. top 7 opponents AT MAJOR EVENTS is 2-10. I think he belongs right where he is at #8.

Since I'm going into vs. other top 8 players this year (assuming Del Potro as #8 the entire year even though he was 9 for a large portion):
Ferrer = 3-8 = 27.3%
Tsonga = 1-5 = 16.7%
Berdych = 2-6 = 25%
Del Potro = 2-10 = 16.7%

Keep in mind that this stat is ONLY FOR GRAND SLAMS, MASTERS 1000 AND OLYMPICS level tournaments. Smaller tournaments don't count because Mark Lenders says they shouldn't. You're getting what you want Lenders ;)

So against other top 8 players in big events, Ferrer leads the pack in both wins and percentage (3 wins, 27.3%). Berdych and Del Potro are tied for second in wins but Berdych edges out Del Potro in percentage won (Both 2 wins, Berdych has 25%, Delpo has 16.7%). Tsonga and Del Potro are tied in last for percentage, but Del Potro has one more win than Tsonga (Both 16.7%, Delpo has 2 wins, Tsonga has 1).

So for the first stat way back towards the beginning of this post
1st - Ferrer
2nd - Del Potro
3rd - Berdych
3rd - Tsonga

and for Win % against other top 8 players:
1st - Ferrer
2nd - Berdych (tied with Delpo for wins but larger %)
3rd - Del Potro (tied with Tsonga for % but more wins)
4th - Tsonga

It is emphatically clear that Ferrer has performed the best of these four guys throughout the year and it is why he is ranked #5. Del Potro is a distant second, but that is why he is #6 in the race and why he will most likely finish the year at #7 or 6. Berdych has simply had more solid results than Tsonga this year and the only thing keeping them tied in the first statistic is Tsonga's lucky draw/Berdych sucking dick at Wimbledon. This explains why Berdych is #7 in the race while Tsonga is sitting on #8.

So now that I've gotten through all this... Would somebody be kind enough to explain to me why the fuck Delpo is more of a favorite than Ferrer to win big tournaments??? Or for that matter, why the fuck should he be ranked #5 instead of Ferrer???

Anybody got any ideas? Cuz I think the math speaks for itself. And just so we don't run into this issue with Lenders, even if I doubled points for the Olympics giving it Grand Slam prestige, Del Potro would still fall behind Ferrer.

These are all facts. There is no point in arguing facts because they have been proven to be true. Arguing that facts are false with an opinion is like trying to cut pure diamond with a scissor. You can keep trying, but soon enough you have to realize that it's not going to work.

Nice work. This thread (http://www.menstennisforums.com/showthread.php?t=209803) (which came and went too quickly) further supports your claim. If the comments on this forum were anything to go by, you'd think Ferrer was a competition winner (rather than a professional), who came about his top 5 spot by winning a raffle (rather than working his ass off). You're free to dislike his style of play, but give him some credit.
Statistics clearly show he's more than earned his position and is no more of a 'vulture' than certain far more hyped players on this board.

Cereal Killer
09-21-2012, 10:45 PM
I think that's irrelevant. If he lives up to his seeding then he deserves his seeding. He has no seeding advantage over any of the other players ranked 5-8, who are in competition with him.

He thinks Ferrer shouldn't even be in the top 10.

Cereal Killer
09-21-2012, 10:49 PM
yes

20pts for Federer
15pts for Nadal
12pts for Djokovic
Slam Bonus 10pts

now lets see......

1.Murray - 81pts
2.Nadal - 76pts
3.Djokovic - 65pts
4.Federer - 49pts
5.Berdych 30pts
6.Rosol - 25pts
7=.Tsonga - 20pts
Isner - 20pts
Roddick - 20pts
Haas - 20pts
11=.Verdasco - 15pts
Kholischrieber - 15pts
Monfils - 15pts
14=.Isner - 12pts
Tipsarevic - 12pts
Del Potro - 12pts

Murray is the GOAT, obviously.

TigerTim
09-21-2012, 10:58 PM
Murray is the GOAT, obviously.

Expected really :rocker2:


:secret: on a side note, no Ferrer or Monaco!

Cereal Killer
09-21-2012, 11:00 PM
I think we should award Fed points though for when he beats himself.

Pirata.
09-21-2012, 11:19 PM
I think we should award Fed points though for when he beats himself.

Fed leads the rankings with 100 points

TigerTim
09-21-2012, 11:23 PM
Yeah, and Nadal gets 10 points when he loses with a injury............

Cereal Killer
09-21-2012, 11:34 PM
Yeah, no.

156mphserve
09-22-2012, 06:59 AM
The only true vultures are players such as Anderson who could get into events such as Bangkok directly but instead don't sign up, and sign up for qualies instead and end up vulturing what is pretty much a guarenteed 12 points for qualifying. Said 12 points is the difference between Anderson being ranked 35th without the 12 points, to instead 35th with the points, inflated ranking :o

Nr 1 Fan
09-22-2012, 08:27 AM
You guys are still missing the point here. There are other threads that discuss which of these four guys have had the best career or the most potential. What we should be thinking about is whether or not Ferrer is a vulture.

Now, the main argument seems to be that he plays in weak draws a few times throughout the year, but when it comes to big events, he can't pull his weight.
So let's get some legitimate comparisons.

I'm going to compare the results of Ferrer, Tsonga, Berdych, and Del Potro for all the GS and Masters 1000 tournaments this year + the Olympics. Whomever achieved the best result in each Masters 1000 / Olympics gets 4 points, the second best gets 3, then third gets 2 and last gets 1. Points are doubled for grand slams.

Australian Open: Ferrer-QF ; Tsonga-R16 ; Berdych QF ; Del Potro-QF
Indian Wells: Ferrer-R32 ; Tsonga-R16 ; Berdych-R16 ; Del Potro-QF
Miami*: Ferrer-QF ; Tsonga-QF ; Berdych-R32 ; Del Potro-R16
Monte-Carlo: they did not all play there so no points for this event... we're only counting mandatory events
Madrid**: Ferrer-QF ; Tsonga-R16 ; Berdych-RUP ; Del Potro-SF
Rome***: Ferrer-SF ; Tsonga-QF ; Berdych-QF ; Del Potro-R16
Roland Garros****: Ferrer-SF ; Tsonga-QF ; Berdych-R16 ; Del Potro-QF
Wimbledon*****: Ferrer-QF ; Tsonga-SF ; Berdych-R128 ; Del Potro-R16
London Olympics: Ferrer-R16 ; Tsonga-QF ; Berdych-R64 ; Del Potro-Bronze
Canada: Ferrer did not play... not comparable, plus the other three guys all lost early after tiring olympics campaign
Cincinnati: Tsonga did not play... not comparable
US Open: Ferrer-SF ; Tsonga-R64 ; Berdych-SF ; Del Potro-QF

* Miami R16: Ferrer def. Del Potro 63 63
** Madrid SF: Berdych def. Del Potro 76 76
*** Rome R16: Tsonga def. Del Potro 64 61
**** Roland Garros R16: Del Potro def. Berdych 76 16 63 75
***** Wimbledon R16: Ferrer def. Del Potro 63 62 63

So the totals are:
Ferrer - 43
Tsonga - 31
Berdych - 31
Del Potro - 38

As we can see, Ferrer has clearly had a more solid year at the big events than the other three guys.
In addition, I think it is worth pointing out that in big events this year, Del Potro is 1-4 against the other three guys.
I think if these four are the last WTF qualifiers, Del Potro's poor record against these guys at the big events will be exposed, not to mention he hasn't exactly beaten Federer or Djokovic this year at big events barring the Olympics (has not played Nadal or Murray this season :cuckoo:). Add 4 losses against Federer this year at big events, and 2 against Djokovic and add his win over Djokovic in London and his record thus far in the season vs. top 7 opponents AT MAJOR EVENTS is 2-10. I think he belongs right where he is at #8.

Since I'm going into vs. other top 8 players this year (assuming Del Potro as #8 the entire year even though he was 9 for a large portion):
Ferrer = 3-8 = 27.3%
Tsonga = 1-5 = 16.7%
Berdych = 2-6 = 25%
Del Potro = 2-10 = 16.7%

Keep in mind that this stat is ONLY FOR GRAND SLAMS, MASTERS 1000 AND OLYMPICS level tournaments. Smaller tournaments don't count because Mark Lenders says they shouldn't. You're getting what you want Lenders ;)

So against other top 8 players in big events, Ferrer leads the pack in both wins and percentage (3 wins, 27.3%). Berdych and Del Potro are tied for second in wins but Berdych edges out Del Potro in percentage won (Both 2 wins, Berdych has 25%, Delpo has 16.7%). Tsonga and Del Potro are tied in last for percentage, but Del Potro has one more win than Tsonga (Both 16.7%, Delpo has 2 wins, Tsonga has 1).

So for the first stat way back towards the beginning of this post
1st - Ferrer
2nd - Del Potro
3rd - Berdych
3rd - Tsonga

and for Win % against other top 8 players:
1st - Ferrer
2nd - Berdych (tied with Delpo for wins but larger %)
3rd - Del Potro (tied with Tsonga for % but more wins)
4th - Tsonga

It is emphatically clear that Ferrer has performed the best of these four guys throughout the year and it is why he is ranked #5. Del Potro is a distant second, but that is why he is #6 in the race and why he will most likely finish the year at #7 or 6. Berdych has simply had more solid results than Tsonga this year and the only thing keeping them tied in the first statistic is Tsonga's lucky draw/Berdych sucking dick at Wimbledon. This explains why Berdych is #7 in the race while Tsonga is sitting on #8.

So now that I've gotten through all this... Would somebody be kind enough to explain to me why the fuck Delpo is more of a favorite than Ferrer to win big tournaments??? Or for that matter, why the fuck should he be ranked #5 instead of Ferrer???

Anybody got any ideas? Cuz I think the math speaks for itself. And just so we don't run into this issue with Lenders, even if I doubled points for the Olympics giving it Grand Slam prestige, Del Potro would still fall behind Ferrer.

These are all facts. There is no point in arguing facts because they have been proven to be true. Arguing that facts are false with an opinion is like trying to cut pure diamond with a scissor. You can keep trying, but soon enough you have to realize that it's not going to work.


Superior post, love the work you put in it :worship:

ogbg
09-23-2012, 11:04 PM
Bring up stats about quality/ranking of opponents or field level in non mandatory events and then we're talking.

Here are the median opponent defeated rankings in non-mandatory tournaments in 2011.

stebs
09-24-2012, 11:23 AM
Here are the median opponent defeated rankings in non-mandatory tournaments in 2011.

:worship: Great! Of course, it should be noted that the conclusiveness of these results (Ferrer actually having faced far higher ranked opposition than the others of his rank bracket) is convenient but also partially irrelevant. IMO, none of the deviations from the expected value curve are really especially noteworthy except perhaps Mardy Fish, who really did get a substantially easier ride to his points than similarly ranked peers.

duong
09-24-2012, 11:28 AM
IMO, none of the deviations from the expected value curve are really especially noteworthy except perhaps Mardy Fish, who really did get a substantially easier ride to his points than similarly ranked peers.

Fish is one of those who got most of their points from mandatory tournaments (72%).

Only the top-4, Gasquet and Tsonga got a bigger share of their points in mandatory tournaments.

Another evidence against the vulturing theory which assimilates "playing against lower ranked opponents" with ATP250 tournaments comparing to mandatory ones.

Orka_n
09-24-2012, 03:19 PM
The ranking system in tennis is designed so that it is impossible for a player to maintain a high ranking only through winning small tournaments. (I say "only", but winning several ATP-tournaments in one year is actually quite an achievement, contrary to what the idiots on this board believe.) The very notion of "vulture" is therefore absurd from the start.

Even more so when we speak about players like Ferrer. This is a guy who has done better in slams than anyone else this year apart from the top 4. "Only because of his seeding" arse clowns like Lenders may say. This is a contradiction in itself; if Ferrer actually did not deserve his seeding, he WOULD NOT LIVE UP TO IT TIME AFTER TIME. Accusing a player who's main weapon is consistency and endurance for actually being consistent is beyond retarded.

"Ferrer never delivers on the big stage" = also false, Ferrer has taken out Murray and Nadal in slams & Nole twice in YEC and has like duong showed decent-to-good H2H against everyone in the top 10 except Federer, who is an awful match-up for him. David is a true top tenner and there's no way around it. Now, you can have the opinion that Ferrer is not really fit to occupy the fifth place in the rankings considering that several players below him have higher peak abilities (Tsonga, Berdy, Delpo etc). But you'd have to be fairly dumb to blame Ferrer for the inconsistency of these powerhitters. In addition, David is a silent person, liked in the locker room, who only goes about his way and never makes anyone angry.

All of this, as I said some time ago, leads me to the conclusion that there can only be one reason why some people whine about Vulturing and seem to hate Ferrer with so much passion. It is spelled like this:
ATTENTION
WHORING

Ben D.
09-24-2012, 04:03 PM
The only true vultures are players such as Anderson who could get into events such as Bangkok directly but instead don't sign up, and sign up for qualies instead and end up vulturing what is pretty much a guarenteed 12 points for qualifying. Said 12 points is the difference between Anderson being ranked 35th without the 12 points, to instead 35th with the points, inflated ranking :o

ok, i admit, but you must consider too tha Anderson has almost zero chance to reach the final this week, winning 8 matches in 9 days is impossible to do. Simon is vulturing to death on the other hand: he won 6 titles after september while top guys are out. just vulturing like Tsonga who wins tournies with 0 top 20 players.

156mphserve
09-24-2012, 06:18 PM
Anderson only had to win 2 qualies matches, so it's only 7 in 9 days. Plus the 2 matches of his were as good as over before the even started, especially his first one, they're not going to tire him out at all. And 3rd, I was not even talking about him vulturing the entire tournament, I was refering to him vulturing 12 qualies points which he did in fact achieve. And 4th it was more of a joke because those 12 points will not improve his ranking at all, just like Ferrer's numerious 250 wins doesn't improve his at all since if non man datory tournaments were removed he would still be ranked 5th

saviopr
09-24-2012, 06:23 PM
The ranking system in tennis is designed so that it is impossible for a player to maintain a high ranking only through winning small tournaments. (I say "only", but winning several ATP-tournaments in one year is actually quite an achievement, contrary to what the idiots on this board believe.) The very notion of "vulture" is therefore absurd from the start.

Even more so when we speak about players like Ferrer. This is a guy who has done better in slams than anyone else this year apart from the top 4. "Only because of his seeding" arse clowns like Lenders may say. This is a contradiction in itself; if Ferrer actually did not deserve his seeding, he WOULD NOT LIVE UP TO IT TIME AFTER TIME. Accusing a player who's main weapon is consistency and endurance for actually being consistent is beyond retarded.

"Ferrer never delivers on the big stage" = also false, Ferrer has taken out Murray and Nadal in slams & Nole twice in YEC and has like duong showed decent-to-good H2H against everyone in the top 10 except Federer, who is an awful match-up for him. David is a true top tenner and there's no way around it. Now, you can have the opinion that Ferrer is not really fit to occupy the fifth place in the rankings considering that several players below him have higher peak abilities (Tsonga, Berdy, Delpo etc). But you'd have to be fairly dumb to blame Ferrer for the inconsistency of these powerhitters. In addition, David is a silent person, liked in the locker room, who only goes about his way and never makes anyone angry.

All of this, as I said some time ago, leads me to the conclusion that there can only be one reason why some people whine about Vulturing and seem to hate Ferrer with so much passion. It is spelled like this:
ATTENTION
WHORING

How people cannot see that? One more brilliant post.

lalaland
09-24-2012, 08:58 PM
Simon is vulturing to death on the other hand: he won 6 titles after september while top guys are out. just vulturing like Tsonga who wins tournies with 0 top 20 players.

I supposed I should ignore you, like others do. But I can't resist, I'll take the bait.

Let's see. What months is after Sept?
Jan? (Sydney), Feb? (Marseille), Apr? (Bucharest), May? (Casablanca) July? (Indianopolis, Hamburg).

6 out of 10 of his titles aren't after Sept. Unless you follow a different calendar.
The 4 that was in Sept: He won Metz seeded 8, with Gasquet a higher seed in the draw (but hey, you have to win the tournament to be considered vulturing, right?). He won Bangkok with Tsonga as Top 10/first seed. Won Bucharest twice in 07, 08 when he then was still very fond of clay and can't help himself playing on clay after USO, guilty as charged. Only 1 out of his 10 titles that he won it as #1 seed.

And let's look at Gasquet's 6 titles: 3 from tournaments the week before slams where all the Top players play, right? 1 at Mumbai which I don't remember which month it was held as this is one very prestigious tournament that's no longer exists. I remembered Lyon, was sometimes in the Fall, that's after Sept. And Gstaad in July. Yes, so much better, Gasquet's titles are much more worthy than Simon, right Blackbriar? ooops, I mean Ben D?

Your obsession of calling Simon a Vulture is getting close to Mark Lender's Ferrer obsession. At least Ferrer is good and consistent in winning the small events, Simon isn't. Simon only gets to 10 ATP250 finals, even Gasquet was in more, 12 ATP250 finals.

I don't agree with the word vulture at all. ATP 500 tournaments are mandatory too in case people forgot. Players choose which to play based on their preference on the surface, the time of the year, location, and in case of Dubai, the money. Nothing wrong with that. And ATP250 without any Top 30 players will be considered challengers, so some Top 30 will have to show up for the greater good of the sports. They shouldn't be criticized for playing tournaments that exists for them in the first place.

n8
09-24-2012, 09:41 PM
Anderson only had to win 2 qualies matches, so it's only 7 in 9 days. Plus the 2 matches of his were as good as over before the even started, especially his first one, they're not going to tire him out at all. And 3rd, I was not even talking about him vulturing the entire tournament, I was refering to him vulturing 12 qualies points which he did in fact achieve. And 4th it was more of a joke because those 12 points will not improve his ranking at all, just like Ferrer's numerious 250 wins doesn't improve his at all since if non man datory tournaments were removed he would still be ranked 5th

You're very clever. And the Anderson joke was funny. I would love those 12 points to end up being the difference between getting an Australian Open seed or something.

156mphserve
09-24-2012, 10:11 PM
Yeah, that would seriously suck for the person who loses out on that seed if happens. Anderson wasn't vulturing though, had he known he was gonna play Bangkok 6 weeks ago he would have signed up. But yeah, I think if a player could have gotten direct entry and instead didn't sign up for whatever reason and instead played qualies, then they should not be allowed to get points for qualifying, I could actually see some players doing that as a vulturing strategy

duong
09-24-2012, 10:29 PM
then they should not be allowed to get points for qualifying, I could actually see some players doing that as a vulturing strategy

not to get points, I really don't think as it's 3, sometimes 2 matches to play for only 12 points

sometimes players are OK with playing those qualies just to get some matches if they need them after some time off or if they've played badly and want to practise, but not for the points, no.

In the choice of the challenget tournaments there are more calculations about points because the fields are very diverse with quite the same number of points. Lorenzi especially is a specialist to go to the challengers with the weakest fields (there even was a period when Lorenzi was ranked quite far and he even went to play the weakest field futures in Africa), Prodon was quite used to that in a lesser extent, Kavcic also in a lesser extent, Sela, Schuettler, ... there are some specialists of weak-field challengers like that.

Tag
09-24-2012, 10:59 PM
vulturing is a ruthless tactic employed by the likes of monaco and tipsarevic

ferrer certainly has vultured in the past, but is at least backing up this systematic ranking points abuse with runs at the slams

federer and nadal are of course the worst of the lot, turning prestigious tournaments into glorified exos

SchalkenFan
09-25-2012, 02:53 AM
Ok so i'm not much of a mens tennis fan but i am very much on the team of banishing words like "Vulture" "NID" and "Pusher" from the Forums ........but with that being said, you need to realize those are "troll" words to begin with so trying to defend against those statments(even if posting stats nd figures)is like taking to a wall.

On the surface for a top 5 player to be playing that many "MM/250" events will obviously draw 'vulture'comments, and then with his grinding style of play/'Just being consistent', he is bound to draw haters. Deal with this and move on, the amount of effort seen in this thread to disprove the Ferrer-Vulture theory is laughable and seems rather defensive.

Now my question is: If you remove the points off Ferrer's rank from these 'vulture' events, where would be be ranked?

156mphserve
09-25-2012, 02:58 AM
not to get points, I really don't think as it's 3, sometimes 2 matches to play for only 12 points

sometimes players are OK with playing those qualies just to get some matches if they need them after some time off or if they've played badly and want to practise, but not for the points, no.

In the choice of the challenget tournaments there are more calculations about points because the fields are very diverse with quite the same number of points. Lorenzi especially is a specialist to go to the challengers with the weakest fields (there even was a period when Lorenzi was ranked quite far and he even went to play the weakest field futures in Africa), Prodon was quite used to that in a lesser extent, Kavcic also in a lesser extent, Sela, Schuettler, ... there are some specialists of weak-field challengers like that.

yeah the points are pretty miniscule but a player who could have gotten in directly should not benefit from forgetting to sign up and having to play qualies

156mphserve
09-25-2012, 02:59 AM
Ok so i'm not much of a mens tennis fan but i am very much on the team of banishing words like "Vulture" "NID" and "Pusher" from the Forums ........but with that being said, you need to realize those are "troll" words to begin with so trying to defend against those statments(even if posting stats nd figures)is like taking to a wall.

On the surface for a top 5 player to be playing that many "MM/250" events will obviously draw 'vulture'comments, and then with his grinding style of play/'Just being consistent', he is bound to draw haters. Deal with this and move on, the amount of effort seen in this thread to disprove the Ferrer-Vulture theory is laughable and seems rather defensive.

Now my question is: If you remove the points off Ferrer's rank from these 'vulture' events, where would be be ranked?

If You remove the non mandatory tournaments from everyone(because removing them from just Ferrer would be unfair, others would have 18 tournaments against ferrer's 12 to get points) then Ferrer would still be #5

Topspindoctor
09-25-2012, 03:05 AM
I dunno why people call Ferrer a "vulture" just because Mug Clownders started the trend. Guy is solid in slams, good challenger for the elite guys, good fighter and not a choker. Respect. He lacks weapons to actually win big titles but he's consistent and rarely loses to scrubs - honestly guys like Del Potro and Clownga are bigger vultures than him, but nobody calls them out on it since they are supposedly more "talented" Time for the trolls here to start showing some respect to players who actually put in the hours instead of hurling insults while praising other mediocre mugs with even bigger holes in their games like clueless fangirls.

Action Jackson
09-25-2012, 03:10 AM
It's only Lenders and his stooges that call Ferrer a vulture when there is clear evidence otherwise.

Doc, you aren't the one to be giving advice about respecting players.

uxyzapenje
09-25-2012, 03:11 AM
I dunno why people call Ferrer a "vulture" just because Mug Clownders started the trend. Guy is solid in slams, good challenger for the elite guys, good fighter and not a choker. Respect. He lacks weapons to actually win big titles but he's consistent and rarely loses to scrubs - honestly guys like Del Potro and Clownga are bigger vultures than him, but nobody calls them out on it since they are supposedly more "talented" Time for the trolls here to start showing some respect to players who actually put in the hours instead of hurling insults while praising other mediocre mugs with even bigger holes in their games like clueless fangirls.

:haha::haha::haha::haha: Trollspindoc talks about posters not showing respect for players hard work and calls other people trolls :superlol:

Freak3yman84
09-25-2012, 03:14 AM
If I were a player I would love to be called a vulture, because being a vulture means your smart and don't play tournaments where you have no chance. But for fuck's sake, why is it used in every thread to do with Ferrer? Just shut up, and let him do his thing.

duong
09-25-2012, 06:59 AM
Now my question is: If you remove the points off Ferrer's rank from these 'vulture' events, where would be be ranked?

it was said in several parts of the thread : he would lose absolutely nothing.

Ok so i'm not much of a mens tennis fan but i am very much on the team of banishing words like "Vulture" "NID" and "Pusher" from the Forums ........but with that being said, you need to realize those are "troll" words to begin with so trying to defend against those statments(even if posting stats nd figures)is like taking to a wall.

my main concern is not Lenders although his bombarding of his ideas was effective and made a lot of damage.

My problem is that many other people, including usually objective ones, incorporated some of these false ideas about vulturing.

Including you :

On the surface for a top 5 player to be playing that many "MM/250" events will obviously draw 'vulture'comments

Ferrer has only played 4 ATP250 tournaments in the last 52 weeks, Tsonga has played 7, Del Potro 5, Berdych 4 if you include the World Team cup.

Slasher1985
09-26-2012, 11:24 AM
Kohli playing Orleans Challenger with the next player not even in Top 50. I would call that "points" vulturing by your standard, duong. By my standard however, I think he's doing some warming up because he can only gain a maximum of 55 points, not that much to bother playing 5 matches, so not even this can be called vulturing if you ask me.

Mark Lenders
09-26-2012, 11:27 AM
Kohli playing Orleans Challenger with the next player not even in Top 50. I would call that "points" vulturing by your standard, duong. By my standard however, I think he's doing some warming up because he can only gain a maximum of 55 points, not that much to bother playing 5 matches, so not even this can be called vulturing if you ask me.

It is vulturing. It's not a problem when you do it once in a blue moon though. Vulturing one tournament does not make Kohli a vulture.

When you vulture in systematic fashion like Ferrer, Monaco and co.,thus bringing the whole ranking system into disrupt, that's when you deserve to be singled out as a vulture.

TigerTim
09-26-2012, 11:34 AM
If I was a player I would for sure Vulture

Auckland
Aussie Open
Zagreb
Memphis
Delray Beach
Miami
Casablanca
Monte Carlo
Bucharest
BMW Open
Madrid
Nice
French Open
UNICEF Open
Eastbourne
Wimbledon
Newport
LA
Canada
New Haven
USO
Shanghai
Stockholm
Valencia
Paris

:drool:

duong
09-26-2012, 11:42 AM
Kohli playing Orleans Challenger with the next player not even in Top 50. I would call that "points" vulturing by your standard, duong. By my standard however, I think he's doing some warming up because he can only gain a maximum of 55 points, not that much to bother playing 5 matches, so not even this can be called vulturing if you ask me.

Once again it has absolutely nothing to do with points vulturing (including by "my standards"), it has everything to do with money !!

The draw in Orleans is great if you look carefully : Kohli has to face Mannarino, top-50 a little bit more than one year ago, and Llodra in second round who was top-30 (Llodra who absolutely needs points on the opposite and will then play Mons and Rennes challengers : Llodra might be a point vulturer if you want, not Kohli !)

As you said yourself, Kohli will only get points if he wins the tournament ! And that's far from easy and done if you look at the draw. And 55 points (even less 35 points in the Race) is absolutely nothing when you get to Kohli's kind of rankings at the moment.

The problem is that fans constantly underrate the role of money in players' life but on the other side are obsessed by ranking points.

I can understand that as I calculate the rankings myself and I don't earn players' money either, but please I would like people to realize that from the players' point of view, it's different.

And please don't give coal to burn Lenders' stupid fire with his completely imaginary theory.

n8
09-26-2012, 11:43 AM
If I was a player I would for sure Vulture
...
UNICEF Open
Eastbourne
...


Vulturism at it's best; playing both UNICEF and Eastbourne.

Slasher1985
09-26-2012, 11:47 AM
Once again it has absolutely nothing to do with points vulturing (including by "my standards"), it has everything to do with money !!

The draw in Orleans is great if you look carefully : Kohli might face Llodra in second round (Llodra who absolutely needs points on the opposite and will then play Mons and Rennes challengers : Llodra might be a point vulturer if you want, not Kohli !)

As you said yourself, Kohli will only get points if he wins the tournament ! And that's far from easy and done if you look at the draw. And 55 points is absolutely nothing when you get to Kohli's kind of rankings at the moment.

The problem is that fans constantly underrate the role of money in players' life but on the other side are obsessed by ranking points.

I can understand that as I calculate the rankings myself but please I would like people to realize that from the players' point of view, it's different.

And please don't give coal to burn Lenders' stupid fire with his completely imaginary theory.

Ah, thanks for being this patient. I finally get what you were trying to say. Than Kohli is not a vulture by any standard. Was not trying to give coal to Lenders either.:)

TigerTim
09-26-2012, 11:48 AM
Vulturism at it's best; playing both UNICEF and Eastbourne.

I have my Ferry at the ready! Even Ferrer doesn't do that :yeah:

duong
09-26-2012, 11:54 AM
Was not trying to give coal to Lenders either.:)

I know but many people do that unpurposefully :lol: :(

Vulturing would be trying to get as many points but with an easier way, and it's clearly not the point here with Kohli.

As I said, I can only see that in challengers because I think the points are not enough differentiated between challenger tournaments, especially for the players who don't win the tournament.

Because the challenger draws are of very different levels yet for a first round the difference is between 6 and 10 points, for a QF between 15 and 25, for the SF between 29 and 45.

n8
09-26-2012, 12:14 PM
If you go to Ferrer's rankings breakdown on the ATP website, you will see that he has maxed out his "other countable tournaments" (those other than GS, 1000, 500, davis cup, and WTF). In fact, his win in Bastad is not even included in his ranking right now. So regardless of his result, he will not gain or lose any points overall.

No one ever seems to put any weight on point stabilisation.

Ferrer winning Bastad may not have improved his current ranking, but it may help his long-term ranking. Let's say he loses early in Auckland 2013, well he wouldn't lose any points (despite being defending champion) as his 2012 Auckland points would be replaced with his Bastad points.

There is never absolutely no ranking point incentive to play a tournament.

Tag
09-26-2012, 12:51 PM
jimmy connors was the most deadly vulture ever

preying on 8 man fields

disgusting

duong
09-26-2012, 12:52 PM
No one ever seems to put any weight on point stabilisation.

Ferrer winning Bastad may not have improved his current ranking, but it may help his long-term ranking. Let's say he loses early in Auckland 2013, well he wouldn't lose any points (despite being defending champion) as his 2012 Auckland points would be replaced with his Bastad points.

There is never absolutely no ranking point incentive to play a tournament.

yes but that's marginal because as Thunderfish pointed, Ferrer's success in ATP500 tournaments has been constant for more than 2 years.

Anyway, I have the impression to see a debate between "pure" politicians (Lenders) on one side, who use whatever easy and seducive theory, prejudice, caricature, exaggeration, lie to make their point popular, and rigorous and honest politicians/accountants/statisticians (Stebs, Statracket and others) on the other side who describe everything in detail including a lot of nuances, counterhypotheses or arguments which might be used, etc ...

As a statistician, I've often seen these debates, and do you know who is by far the more convincing for the spectators of that debate in the end ? The lying politician.

Most people are not interested in nuances and complexity and if you give them any point which might go on the opponent's side you lose your credibility or at least your interest in the people's eyes, and most people are attracted by easy caricatures "beautiful in their simplicity".

That's tragic, especially for democracy, but that's true :facepalm: