[cleverdutchclogs]

There are many players who have made dramatic rises up the world rankings this year, who I have not completely made my mind up whether they will be there in two years time.

There are also players who are up there in the rankings because the ranking system is not as good as it should be and certain players are taking advantage of the fact.

Thirdly, certain players may have won a title (one title could be a fluke) or done well in one tournament with a huge amount of ranking points.

But who is punching above their weight the most?

 

[vincayou]

Henman? What is he doing in this poll? Same for Coria and Nalbandian... They are here for several years and not really at their best ranking...

In addition, they are not there because the ranking system is bad, but as you pointed, because they have had good results this year. So the question is will they sustain the same level of results in the coming years.

 

[cleverdutchclogs]

They are there because their form has dipped dramatically from previous months year/s and, therefore, it could be argued that in two years time, their decline could continue.

For players like Gasquet (no doubting his ability AT ALL), has their rise been too quick?

It will be interesting to hear people's opinions.

 

[cleverdutchclogs]

Players like Puerta were previously punching below their weight, I suppose, and now some normaility has been restored!

 

[Chloe le Bopper]

Humour me as to how you think the ranking system could be better.

 

[Scotso]

I'm guessing punching above your weight = overacheiving in some odd slang.

 

[ys]

Humour me as to how you think the ranking system could be better.

The only system that I can think of that would be a clearly better and more accurate ( in terms of being a predictor ) system would be Elo. But its major disadvantage is being too complicated, so that rankings amateurs would not be able to entertain themselves with calculating rankings on their own.

 

[Duncan]

Ljubicic and Stepanek but i choose Ljubicic

 

[TennisLurker]

the problem with elo is that under normal circumstances (fed is awesome, not normal) the number 1 wouldnt be a fave on every surface, beating sampras on clay could improve your ranking too much.

 

[Chloe le Bopper]

Forgive my ignorance, but what is elo?

 

[skel1983]

Pucnching above your weight???

No one obviously players Like Stepanek don't have the most natural game, but tennis is not all about beautiful shots like a federer, Stepanek is tactically brilliant he knows how to win matches even though he is of lesser raw talent, all the guys up there have found a way to win, just because there style is not your typical powerhouse or great groundstrokes other elements of there game are great, the rankings don't lie.

If players are sustaining high rankings they are obviously not punching above there weight, how can you say Coria,Nalbandian.Henman are punching above there weight???? They have been there since they arrived in around the top 20 for years and years,

Puerta and Dvaydenko time will tell, they will need to back it up in next couple of years, but they obviously have the game to be at the top of the game.

 

[ys]

the problem with elo is that under normal circumstances (fed is awesome, not normal) the number 1 wouldnt be a fave on every surface, beating sampras on clay could improve your ranking too much.

Sure, just like beating Nadal on grass..

Forgive my ignorance, but what is elo?

Rating system used, for instance , in chess.. Also used, afaik, in soccer and rugby world rankings..

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

The basic difference to existing rankings is that existing system counts only wins. In Elo losses count too and they hurt your rankings. If you do not beat a player whom you are supposed to beat according to the rankings, your rankings go down.

The Wtaworld's poster "Ted of Tedstennis" was running Elo rankings for WTA for quite a while.. I do not know if he is still doing that..

 

[jtipson]

Rating system used, for instance , in chess.. Also used, afaik, in soccer and rugby world rankings..

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

The basic difference to existing rankings is that existing system counts only wins. In Elo losses count too and they hurt your rankings. If you do not beat a player whom you are supposed to beat according to the rankings, your rankings go down.

The Wtaworld's poster "Ted of Tedstennis" was running Elo rankings for WTA for quite a while.. I do not know if he is still doing that..

Here is a similar system someone has made for the ATP, if anyone's interested.

http://www.setratings.com/component/option,com_ratingsummary/Itemid,52/

There are both historical and current rankings (current updated to the end of Montreal).

 

[ys]

Here is a similar system someone has made for the ATP, if anyone's interested.

http://www.setratings.com/component/option,com_ratingsummary/Itemid,52/

There are both historical and current rankings (current updated to the end of Montreal).

Note how in those rankings Safin is set back and how Davydenko falls through the floor. Losses hurt.

 

[Truc]

Thanks for the link, it's very interesting.
Ferrero and Grosjean's rankings with this system are quite impressive. I don't understand why Grosjean is #12.

 

[cleverdutchclogs]

how can you say Coria,Nalbandian.Henman are punching above there weight????

I never said they were - Henman and Nalbandian happen to be 2 of my favourite 3 players. However, based on their form over the past 12 months, which hasn't been too flashy, is their ranking an accurate reflection of determining how well they have played compared with the rest of the world's elite?

 

[Beforehand]

In the linked rankings, Florent Serra is 49.

.....