[duong]

Originally Posted by feuselino

Does anyone have provisional 3-months, 6-months or 9-months ATP rankings? I am always interested in seeing how the players have done in the short-term. Who has earned the most points since Roland Garros, or since Wimbledon, or since the US Open, for example? Thanks a lot in advance!

After the Aus open here's the situation at the moment not taking into account points earnt in the WTF :

Djokovic 9420
Federer 8745
Murray 6630
Ferrer 5625
Nadal 5400
Berdych 4045
Del Potro 3720
Tsonga 3195
Tipsarevic 2840

After Dubai (seeds for Indian Wells) :
Djokovic 9240
Federer 7760
Murray 6330
Nadal 5400
Ferrer 5185
Berdych 3770
Del Potro 3570
Tsonga 3140
Tipsarevic 2785

After Miami (seeds for Monte-Carlo) :
Djokovic 7880
Federer 6715
Murray 5720
Ferrer 4960
Nadal 4680
Berdych 3635
Del Potro 3300
Tsonga 2870
Tipsarevic 2560

After Barcelona (seeds for Madrid and Roma) :
Djokovic 7280
Federer 6715
Murray 5450
Ferrer 4650
Del Potro 3220
Berdych 3190
Nadal 3180
Tsonga 2710
Tipsarevic 2560

After Roma (seeds for Roland-Garros) :
Djokovic 6500
Murray 5360
Federer 5355
Ferrer 4110
Del Potro 2520
Tsonga 2440
Berdych 2410
Tipsarevic 2190
Nadal 2090

After the French Open :
Djokovic 5300
Murray 5000
Federer 4635
Ferrer 3390
Del Potro 2160
Berdych 2130
Tsonga 2080
Tipsarevic 1830
(Nadal 90)

After Wimbledon here's the top-50 I have :

1	Djokovic	4580
2	Murray	3800
3	Ferrer	2780
4	Federer	2485
5	Berdych	2075
6	Del Potro	1980
7	Tipsarevic	1740
8	Gasquet	1400
9	Cilic	1375
10	Tsonga	1340
11	Isner	1320
12	Dolgopolov	1190
13	Monaco	1190
14	Querrey	1170
15	Nishikori	1145
16	Raonic	1090
17	Haas	1080
18	Almagro	995
19	Janowicz	919
20	Wawrinka	820
21	Simon	815
22	Fish	720
23	Klizan	720
24	Seppi	670
25	Chardy	631
26	Kohlschreiber	620
27	Bellucci	585
28	Baghdatis	575
29	Granollers	565
30	F Lopez	555
31	Zemlja	551
32	Roddick	495
33	Hanescu	492
34	Gimeno-Traver	477
35	Dimitrov	470
36	Mathieu	466
37	Llodra	463
38	F Mayer	450
39	Hewitt	445
40	Davydenko	440
41	Fognini	430
42	Lu Yen Hsun	425
43	Anderson	422
44	Benneteau	420
45	Müller	418
46	Youzhny	405
47	Sijsling	405
48	Stepanek	395
49	Blake 	393
50	Berankis	379

As a comparison the points earnt by the top-10 players who got most points after Wimbledon in 2011 :

Djokovic	4 160
Federer	4 005
Murray	3 660
Tsonga	2 900
Nadal	2 260
Ferrer	2 185
Berdych	2 070
Fish	1 820
Tipsarevic	1 785
Isner	1 455

in 2010 :

Federer	5 530
Nadal	4 220
Djokovic	3 685
Murray	3 135
Söderling	2 385
Monfils	2 030
Ferrer	1 440
Fish	1 385
Youzhny	1 260
Nalbandian	1 145

in 2009 :

Djokovic	4 260
Del Potro	4 170
Davydenko	4 110
Federer	3 090
Murray	2 530
Nadal	2 400
Söderling	1 785
Tsonga	1 455
Monfils	1 445
Verdasco	1 270

in 2008 doubling the points from the ancient ranking system:

Murray	5 210
Djokovic	4 100
Nadal	3 850
Federer	3 760
Del Potro	3 420
Simon	2 920
Tsonga	2 100
Roddick	2 050
Davydenko	1 940
Nalbandian	1 900

As you see, it's not a good end of year for Federer and he'd better do well in the WTF. Although 2008 and especially 2009 were not very good either.

Djokovic has regularly been good in these post-Wimbledon periods, and Murray has been irregular : this period of the year has been a good one for him this year.

[J99]

Players retiring is not by ATP choice, but by player choice. The players basically announce they won't be playing any more tournaments, which does not concern the ATP. ATP doesn't have to do anything. Players can change their mind and continue playing despite announcing not playing anymore. They shouldn't be taken out of the rankings unless the player asks this or the player has violated parts of the conduct code. It's correct the way it is now. Retiring is not like signing a contract with ATP. In fact, the player doesn't even have to tell the ATP he is retiring (maybe except for commitment players).

I know it's by player choice of course, but it's the ATP's computer, other sports when players retire remove said player from their stats etc. so why not tennis, and you can't expect the ATP to wonder if that player will come back, which they usually probably won't, they can't be dealing with that, as I said before it's not fair to active players to have retired guys taking up their spots, like for instance when Roddick made a big deal of his retirement, I think it's quite certain he won't be coming back, so there is no point in having him still in the ranking.

When is a retired player removed from the computer btw, when the season ends?

[Litotes]

Originally Posted by J99

I know it's by player choice of course, but it's the ATP's computer, other sports when players retire remove said player from their stats etc. so why not tennis, and you can't expect the ATP to wonder if that player will come back, which they usually probably won't, they can't be dealing with that, as I said before it's not fair to active players to have retired guys taking up their spots, like for instance when Roddick made a big deal of his retirement, I think it's quite certain he won't be coming back, so there is no point in having him still in the ranking.

When is a retired player removed from the computer btw, when the season ends?

Why is it "not fair" to active players? Where's the harm? It is no worse being ranked #102 behind five retired players than #97 behind none. You compete for places in tournaments only with those who want to play said tournaments.

Retired players fall off when their results do. Sampras was ranked #34 before the start of US Open 2003, then afterwards he was gone from the list - a full year after he last played. The same goes for those who have publically announced they were going to retire, but stopped short of asking to have their ranking removed.

[Slasher1985]

Originally Posted by J99

I know it's by player choice of course, but it's the ATP's computer, other sports when players retire remove said player from their stats etc. so why not tennis, and you can't expect the ATP to wonder if that player will come back, which they usually probably won't, they can't be dealing with that, as I said before it's not fair to active players to have retired guys taking up their spots, like for instance when Roddick made a big deal of his retirement, I think it's quite certain he won't be coming back, so there is no point in having him still in the ranking.

When is a retired player removed from the computer btw, when the season ends?

In Formula 1 (which really sucks, but is a good example), once a pilot retires from the race, he is not immediately thrown into last place, unless all other remaining drivers pass him. Thus, Andy Roddick has won points and it would be "helping the other tennis players" to simply have them all advance one place for free. Throwing Roddick's points away (which he earned) is not really fair to the sport. If other players want to be ahead of him, they must earn the points he earned.

Any retired player that does not specify he wants out of the rankings is taken out once all his points are dropped. Out of the computer, never. Any player that has played at least one tournament on ATP or Challenger level or gained one ATP point is in the computer forever.

[duong]

Originally Posted by J99

When is a retired player removed from the computer btw, when the season ends?

only when all of their points drop off, or when they write a letter to ask so : Safin was the first one to write such a letter, I think, and Ljubicic did the same.

Roddick will stay very high in the rankings for many months, and I agree it puts a fuss in the ATP rules.

Especially for grand slam and Masters series lists, you have one player who is always out : you can say the first alternate is just in, it's simple, no it's not that simple because the first alternate can withdraw without getting a zeropointer, which he couldn't do if he was in directly.

I hope Roddick writes a letter during the off-season to the ATP as Safin and Ljubicic did.

Actually, if he's still allowed to go back and take part in Masters Series, he should respect the anti-doping procedures such as saying where he stays, and I don't think he does that.

Originally Posted by Litotes

Retired players fall off when their results do. Sampras was ranked #34 before the start of US Open 2003, then afterwards he was gone from the list - a full year after he last played.

one word : horrible, just horrible. A mess for all people who deal with the ATP lists, and I can only think that many people kept on hoping Sampras to come back when they saw his name. I remember that in the end of 2002, for the predictions who would win Wimbledon 2003, some people still believed Sampras would come back and win it.

I can't say it's "unfair" but it's horrible for the clarity of the Tour, of the rules and rankings.

[Litotes]

Originally Posted by duong

Especially for grand slam and Masters series lists, you have one player who is always out : you can say the first alternate is just in, it's simple, no it's not that simple because the first alternate can withdraw without getting a zeropointer, which he couldn't do if he was in directly.

I hope Roddick writes a letter during the off-season to the ATP as Safin and Ljubicic did.


one word : horrible, just horrible. A mess for all people who deal with the ATP lists, and I can only think that many people kept on hoping Sampras to come back when they saw his name. I remember that in the end of 2002, for the predictions who would win Wimbledon 2003, some people still believed Sampras would come back and win it.

I can't say it's "unfair" but it's horrible for the clarity of the Tour, of the rules and rankings.

Interesting. I see your point with first alternate, but I am unsure why it is a bad thing for 1st alternates to be able to withdraw easily.

For Roddick, I hope he'll stay in the rankings as he's got a nice series of weeks ranked in the top-50 and top-100. No reason not to prolong them IMO.

As for Sampras, I always thought he was unsure whether or not he'd continue playing. He suspected 2002 USO was it, but if in doubt then you shouldn't really announce retirement, should you?

[duong]

Originally Posted by Litotes

Interesting. I see your point with first alternate, but I am unsure why it is a bad thing for 1st alternates to be able to withdraw easily.

it's a good thing for the first alternate but a bad thing for the clarity of the Tour and rules. If you regularly look at the entry-lists like me, it really looks like a remanent joke seeing Roddick in the list and having to take him out just because he didn't bother writing a letter to the ATP. I hope he will do it in the off-season though. If they keep him in the rankings, they should also keep him in the anti-doping where-about procedures imo, and if he doesn't send his where-abouts, you should just take him out of the rankings and entry-lists.

Originally Posted by Litotes

For Roddick, I hope he'll stay in the rankings as he's got a nice series of weeks ranked in the top-50 and top-100. No reason not to prolong them IMO.

because he gave up, that's enough of a reason in my eyes. Hewitt, Ferrero and many other players made great efforts to prolong their "streaks" in the top-200 or top-100.

Ljubicic also was very high in the rankings when he retired but he properly wrote a letter.

Originally Posted by Litotes

As for Sampras, I always thought he was unsure whether or not he'd continue playing. He suspected 2002 USO was it, but if in doubt then you shouldn't really announce retirement, should you?

if you're not sure, you shouldn't announce it before your matches imo, because it puts all of your matches into drama, which of course is not good for opponents. I don't remember if Sampras announced it before or after his match though, I think he did it afterwards, which is more fair imo.

Clément only announced it after his final match in Wimbledon qualifyings.

[yesh222]

Why does Chebacca's site have Ferrer's points wrong?

[Slasher1985]

Originally Posted by yesh222

Why does Chebacca's site have Ferrer's points wrong?

Typo.

[Litotes]

Originally Posted by duong

it's a good thing for the first alternate but a bad thing for the clarity of the Tour and rules. If you regularly look at the entry-lists like me, it really looks like a remanent joke seeing Roddick in the list and having to take him out just because he didn't bother writing a letter to the ATP. I hope he will do it in the off-season though. If they keep him in the rankings, they should also keep him in the anti-doping where-about procedures imo, and if he doesn't send his where-abouts, you should just take him out of the rankings and entry-lists.

OK, I sympathize with those who are annoyed by this, but Roddick has taken those points and deserve the ranking as long as he doesn't want it removed.

Originally Posted by duong

because he gave up, that's enough of a reason in my eyes. Hewitt, Ferrero and many other players made great efforts to prolong their "streaks" in the top-200 or top-100.

Ljubicic also was very high in the rankings when he retired but he properly wrote a letter.

He's also "competing" with the likes of Edberg, who officially retired at the end of 1996 but was ranked top-100 until september 8th 1997. I thought it a pity Ljubicic, ranked top-100 consecutively since september 1999, didn't give himself the extra weeks, but it was his decision and one has to respect that.

Originally Posted by duong

if you're not sure, you shouldn't announce it before your matches imo, because it puts all of your matches into drama, which of course is not good for opponents. I don't remember if Sampras announced it before or after his match though, I think he did it afterwards, which is more fair imo.

Clément only announced it after his final match in Wimbledon qualifyings.

Sampras announced retirement at the US Open 2003. Until then he just withdrew from tournaments.
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/en/doc/...ent_258347.htm

[duong]

For those who are interested, I've just made corrections in my rankings for next months, esp. for Federer (-150 from after Dubai), Murray (-90 from after the Aus open), and Tipsarevic (+180 from after the French open).

I thought the more artisanal method I used for the steps before Wimbledon 2013 was better and I trusted it more than the industrial one for after Wimbledon, but actually it was the opposite because I had forgotten to make some adjustments in the final weeks in the artisanal method.

In the previous post, I had adjusted my "industrial" figures after Wimbledon to respect the artisanal figures but actually I should have done the opposite.

Originally Posted by Litotes

Sampras announced retirement at the US Open 2003. Until then he just withdrew from tournaments.
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/en/doc/...ent_258347.htm

Thanks, do you know what he said just after the US Open 2002 exactly ? because in my memories, I thought he had retired then.

[J99]

Originally Posted by Litotes

Interesting. I see your point with first alternate, but I am unsure why it is a bad thing for 1st alternates to be able to withdraw easily.

For Roddick, I hope he'll stay in the rankings as he's got a nice series of weeks ranked in the top-50 and top-100. No reason not to prolong them IMO.

As for Sampras, I always thought he was unsure whether or not he'd continue playing. He suspected 2002 USO was it, but if in doubt then you shouldn't really announce retirement, should you?

It's statements like that that make me go, really, you can't be serious, I say be done with him and don't let his ghost linger, things like this make me wonder about tennis fans sometimes, there is no good argument that can be made for having a retired player still in the rankings.

[Litotes]

Originally Posted by duong

Thanks, do you know what he said just after the US Open 2002 exactly ? because in my memories, I thought he had retired then.

Unfortunately, I cannot remember, but I am sure I didn't interpret him as retiring then.

[duong]

Originally Posted by Litotes

Unfortunately, I cannot remember, but I am sure I didn't interpret him as retiring then.

you're probably right : actually I saw the US open 2002 final but I generally followed less tennis news between 1996 and the end of 2003 (when I discovered Fed in Houston which revitalized my interest )

[feuselino]

Awesome, thanks!

Originally Posted by duong

After the Aus open here's the situation at the moment not taking into account points earnt in the WTF :

Djokovic 9420
Federer 8745
Murray 6630
Ferrer 5625
Nadal 5400
Berdych 4045
Del Potro 3720
Tsonga 3195
Tipsarevic 2840

After Dubai (seeds for Indian Wells) :
Djokovic 9240
Federer 7760
Murray 6330
Nadal 5400
Ferrer 5185
Berdych 3770
Del Potro 3570
Tsonga 3140
Tipsarevic 2785

After Miami (seeds for Monte-Carlo) :
Djokovic 7880
Federer 6715
Murray 5720
Ferrer 4960
Nadal 4680
Berdych 3635
Del Potro 3300
Tsonga 2870
Tipsarevic 2560

After Barcelona (seeds for Madrid and Roma) :
Djokovic 7280
Federer 6715
Murray 5450
Ferrer 4650
Del Potro 3220
Berdych 3190
Nadal 3180
Tsonga 2710
Tipsarevic 2560

After Roma (seeds for Roland-Garros) :
Djokovic 6500
Murray 5360
Federer 5355
Ferrer 4110
Del Potro 2520
Tsonga 2440
Berdych 2410
Tipsarevic 2190
Nadal 2090

After the French Open :
Djokovic 5300
Murray 5000
Federer 4635
Ferrer 3390
Del Potro 2160
Berdych 2130
Tsonga 2080
Tipsarevic 1830
(Nadal 90)

After Wimbledon here's the top-50 I have :

1	Djokovic	4580
2	Murray	3800
3	Ferrer	2780
4	Federer	2485
5	Berdych	2075
6	Del Potro	1980
7	Tipsarevic	1740
8	Gasquet	1400
9	Cilic	1375
10	Tsonga	1340
11	Isner	1320
12	Dolgopolov	1190
13	Monaco	1190
14	Querrey	1170
15	Nishikori	1145
16	Raonic	1090
17	Haas	1080
18	Almagro	995
19	Janowicz	919
20	Wawrinka	820
21	Simon	815
22	Fish	720
23	Klizan	720
24	Seppi	670
25	Chardy	631
26	Kohlschreiber	620
27	Bellucci	585
28	Baghdatis	575
29	Granollers	565
30	F Lopez	555
31	Zemlja	551
32	Roddick	495
33	Hanescu	492
34	Gimeno-Traver	477
35	Dimitrov	470
36	Mathieu	466
37	Llodra	463
38	F Mayer	450
39	Hewitt	445
40	Davydenko	440
41	Fognini	430
42	Lu Yen Hsun	425
43	Anderson	422
44	Benneteau	420
45	Müller	418
46	Youzhny	405
47	Sijsling	405
48	Stepanek	395
49	Blake 	393
50	Berankis	379

As a comparison the points earnt by the top-10 players who got most points after Wimbledon in 2011 :

Djokovic	4 160
Federer	4 005
Murray	3 660
Tsonga	2 900
Nadal	2 260
Ferrer	2 185
Berdych	2 070
Fish	1 820
Tipsarevic	1 785
Isner	1 455

in 2010 :

Federer	5 530
Nadal	4 220
Djokovic	3 685
Murray	3 135
Lorenzi	2 385
Monfils	2 030
Ferrer	1 440
Fish	1 385
Youzhny	1 260
Nalbandian	1 145

in 2009 :

Djokovic	4 260
Del Potro	4 170
Davydenko	4 110
Federer	3 090
Murray	2 530
Nadal	2 400
Lorenzi	1 785
Tsonga	1 455
Monfils	1 445
Verdasco	1 270

in 2008 doubling the points from the ancient ranking system:

Murray	5 210
Djokovic	4 100
Nadal	3 850
Federer	3 760
Del Potro	3 420
Simon	2 920
Tsonga	2 100
Roddick	2 050
Davydenko	1 940
Nalbandian	1 900

As you see, it's not a good end of year for Federer and he'd better do well in the WTF. Although 2008 and especially 2009 were not very good either.

Djokovic has regularly been good in these post-Wimbledon periods, and Murray has been irregular : this period of the year has been a good one for him this year.