Mens Tennis Forums banner

1 - 20 of 77 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,371 Posts
Makes sense. I hope Nole has been upping his game during this time to come roaring back to gain on those lost weeks.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,274 Posts
That is a horrible decision. I was expecting his weeks to count because he would have remained as the number 1 ranked player had points dropped as scheduled.

I also do not understand how freezing points will make things fair. If tennis resumes in September, as ATP are clearly hoping, that would mean some points will have counted in the rankings for 52 weeks, some points would have counted for maybe a year and a half, while others, like Indian Wells and Miami, for two years. That would mean some players got to keep their points for two years without fighting for them, while the players who have to defend points in September will have to fight for them. This would skew rankings.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
27,321 Posts
Captain Luckbot gonna luckbot.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
12,052 Posts
Djokovic should have no problem holding on to the number one ranking, even when things restart.

Yes he has a lot of points to defend, but nothing can really stop him.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cloren

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,274 Posts
The fact that people don’t think this is fair, just makes me question humanity sometimes, seriously.
I disagree. Even if Djokovic's weeks at number 1 stats resume in September, the scenarios for how he can hold on to or lose his number 1 ranking would be different than had tennis resumed in March and at Indian Wells. To give you an example, if tennis resumes in Madrid, Djokovic could lose his number 1 ranking even if he wins Madrid again, whereas he would have kept number 1 at Indian Wells had Nadal not won Indian Wells and/or had Djokovic not reached the semifinal.

We would be looking at different rankings scenarios, and as a result, a distorted representation of rankings.
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
22,281 Posts
I disagree. Even if Djokovic's weeks at number 1 stats resume in September, the scenarios for how he can hold on to or lose his number 1 ranking would be different than had tennis resumed in March and at Indian Wells. To give you an example, if tennis resumes in Madrid, Djokovic could lose his number 1 ranking even if he wins Madrid again, whereas he would have kept number 1 at Indian Wells had Nadal not won Indian Wells and/or had Djokovic not reached the semifinal.

We would be looking at different rankings scenarios, and as a result, a distorted representation of rankings.
And if tennis starts in the US Open, we could be looking at a far more favourable scenario for Djokovic to remain #1 and for Nadal to have it much harder to get it back. Afterwards it would actually be RG, which again would benefit Djokovic hugely since Nadal is the defending champion for that tournament. Give it up, this is the best and rightful thing to do.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,274 Posts
And if tennis starts in the US Open, we could be looking at a far more favourable scenario for Djokovic to remain #1 and for Nadal to have it much harder to get it back. Afterwards it would actually be RG, which again would benefit Djokovic hugely since Nadal is the defending champion for that tournament. Give it up, this is the best and rightful thing to do.
Right. That is why I said it would not be fair for those who have to defend in September. You are only showing why freezing everything would not be fair.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
5,488 Posts
The fact that people don’t think this is fair, just makes me question humanity sometimes, seriously.

The fact that people don’t think this is fair, just makes me question humanity sometimes, seriously.
as usual, both sides are overstating the strength of their position. Why can’t you guys ever admit that these are tough questions without straightforward answers with clearly grey areas, and that no matter what is decided, some people will be unhappy? There’s a running joke amongst us lawyers that whenever a client asks you a question, the answer is never yes or no, it is always “it depends.”

by freezing, Djokovic got unlucky and Rogie got lucky because Djokovic would have had a very good chance to continue to rack up weeks at number one given how well he was playing and his momentum, and Rogie’s record likely would have fallen. If they had chosen to not freeze, Djokovic would have gotten lucky and roger would have gotten unlucky because Djokovic would have kept racking up free weeks when if there hadn’t been a pandemic then Rafa (who was also in great form), would have had a chance to reclaim the top spot in the very next tournament.

ultimately they chose the way that favored Rogie over Nole. Whether that played a role in the decision is not something any of us can answer. But it’s not an easy answer or black and white as to which outcome they should have chosen.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,054 Posts
That is a horrible decision. I was expecting his weeks to count because he would have remained as the number 1 ranked player had points dropped as scheduled.

I also do not understand how freezing points will make things fair. If tennis resumes in September, as ATP are clearly hoping, that would mean some points will have counted in the rankings for 52 weeks, some points would have counted for maybe a year and a half, while others, like Indian Wells and Miami, for two years. That would mean some players got to keep their points for two years without fighting for them, while the players who have to defend points in September will have to fight for them. This would skew rankings.
It makes no sense at all, yes. The ATP has not thought through these scenarios at all. But it preserves Fed's records and standing in the sport of tennis and that's ultimately what matters more to the ATP than anything else. He's the cash cow.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,420 Posts
And if tennis starts in the US Open, we could be looking at a far more favourable scenario for Djokovic to remain #1 and for Nadal to have it much harder to get it back. Afterwards it would actually be RG, which again would benefit Djokovic hugely since Nadal is the defending champion for that tournament. Give it up, this is the best and rightful thing to do.
The Cuomo Open is already happening at this time as we speak. I doubt it will happen again in September. There is no state more affected than New York and no county more affected than Queens by this pandemic. Flushing Meadows is located in Queens county in New York state.

 
  • Like
Reactions: Cloren

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,934 Posts
Anything else would be absurd. The only two other options are:

* The rankings are maintained as they are and are counted. But that would mean that if, say, Tsitsipas went to number one next year for one week, and then a worse pandemic breaks out that lasts for 7 years, that Tsitsipas holds the weeks at #1 record for ever, or until the next major catastrophe creates the next arbitrary champion. That's beyond nonsensical.

* The points drop off. But in that case, this season is merely mirror image of last season. In other words, the ranking spots for 2020 are effectively projected based on last year's performance. That is also arbitrary. Moreover, if the season resumes after Dubai next year, then there would be no ranking points at all and no basis for seedings. As such, Djokovic would have to earn all his points back again, which would be unfair to him and to every player with a points advantage.

Nobody expects somebody like Brad Gilbert to think through the consequences of the nonsense they spout, but the ATP of course is responsible for preserving the integrity of the rankings system.

This situation is so black and white that it doesn't even merit arguing over. People earn ranking points through the tennis they play: the system is based on earning and defending points. If all of the tournaments are cancelled, then there are no points earned or defended. Therefore, the rankings must be frozen.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,493 Posts
Counting weeks at #1 without any points dropping off (and the chance of gaining new points ofc.) wouldn't have made sense anyway. On the other hand, weeks during the off-season count as well...

As for the ranking points, I believe just counting the tournaments that haven't or won't be played for 2 years is the easies way to go. Not optimal surely, but the easiest and probably most accurate solution. Expect it to be done that way.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
228 Posts
Counting weeks at #1 without any points dropping off (and the chance of gaining new points ofc.) wouldn't have made sense anyway. On the other hand, weeks during the off-season count as well...

As for the ranking points, I believe just counting the tournaments that haven't or won't be played for 2 years is the easies way to go. Not optimal surely, but the easiest and probably most accurate solution. Expect it to be done that way.
Dude, that would be wrong on so many levels. They have to use 52 weeks system, I do not see any better solution. If tour is suspended for more then half of the season, they count 50% of points instead of removing all of the points from last year. Easiest solution. Even better would be , if lets say tour is suspended for x days, to count x/365 of those points won in last year period. Complicated yes, but probaby the most fair.
 
1 - 20 of 77 Posts
Top