ATP & WTA rankings

[Suliso]

Formally she would be, but that's based on far less tournaments than would be normal. Only those played since late February 2020.

[skatingfan]

Does this freeze also screw someone who has been playing great since the pandemic, like Jen Brady? Would she really be #2 in the world without the freeze?

Seems so, but important to remember that so few tournaments have been played that Brady is #2 with fewer than 3000 points if we just look at points earned in the past 52 weeks, and in the live two year ranking that would only be enough points for #18. Nadal was asking for a 2 year ranking a few years ago to give players more forgiveness for injury, and what we have now is an example of what a 2 year ranking might look like.

[meganfernandez]

Does this freeze also screw someone who has been playing great since the pandemic, like Jen Brady? Would she really be #2 in the world without the freeze?

Seems so, but important to remember that so few tournaments have been played that Brady is #2 with fewer than 3000 points if we just look at points earned in the past 52 weeks, and in the live two year ranking that would only be enough points for #18. Nadal was asking for a 2 year ranking a few years ago to give players more forgiveness for injury, and what we have now is an example of what a 2 year ranking might look like.

In a 2-year ranking system, would the same number of events count over 104 weeks, or would the number increase?

[Suliso]

Does this freeze also screw someone who has been playing great since the pandemic, like Jen Brady? Would she really be #2 in the world without the freeze?

Seems so, but important to remember that so few tournaments have been played that Brady is #2 with fewer than 3000 points if we just look at points earned in the past 52 weeks, and in the live two year ranking that would only be enough points for #18. Nadal was asking for a 2 year ranking a few years ago to give players more forgiveness for injury, and what we have now is an example of what a 2 year ranking might look like.

I'm unclear on how a 2-year ranking system would be better. It's a compilation of 104 weeks, right? If you get injured, you're still going to go weeks or months without earning points while other players do. Some points will remain on your ranking that would have fallen off after 52 weeks, but so far everyone else's. Do the gains and losses not just offset each other?

No, it's still the best 16 tournaments only over 2 years. The current system greatly limits ability of young players to move up the rankings because nobody is moving down.

Imagine as a thought experiment an extreme case - rankings is best 16 tournaments over 10 years. In that case Djokovic is nearly an eternal #1 because during that time period he has won every tournament once and thus no one could possible do better in the next 4-5 years regardless of him playing or not playing a single match.

[meganfernandez]

Seems so, but important to remember that so few tournaments have been played that Brady is #2 with fewer than 3000 points if we just look at points earned in the past 52 weeks, and in the live two year ranking that would only be enough points for #18. Nadal was asking for a 2 year ranking a few years ago to give players more forgiveness for injury, and what we have now is an example of what a 2 year ranking might look like.

I'm unclear on how a 2-year ranking system would be better. It's a compilation of 104 weeks, right? If you get injured, you're still going to go weeks or months without earning points while other players do. Some points will remain on your ranking that would have fallen off after 52 weeks, but so far everyone else's. Do the gains and losses not just offset each other?

No, it's still the best 16 tournaments only over 2 years. The current system greatly limits ability of young players to move up the rankings because nobody is moving down.

Imagine as a thought experiment an extreme case - rankings is best 16 tournaments over 10 years. In that case Djokovic is nearly an eternal #1 because during that time period he has won every tournament once and thus no one could possible do better in the next 4-5 years regardless of him playing or not playing a single match.

Yeah, I see. I don't like it. A season is a year. Measure the season.

[JazzNU]

[Togtdyalttai]

I looked a bit further down the rankings, and if you extended this to top 20 the list would include Barty and Mertens for the WTA, but still none for the ATP. In fact, there is only one ATP player in the top 50 for both singles and doubles: Shapovalov. Even he is only just in the doubles top 50 at 48.

[Deuce]

I looked a bit further down the rankings, and if you extended this to top 20 the list would include Barty and Mertens for the WTA, but still none for the ATP. In fact, there is only one ATP player in the top 50 for both singles and doubles: Shapovalov. Even he is only just in the doubles top 50 at 48.

That's quite sad.
And Sabalenka has just said that she'll be playing considerably less doubles from now on - so the list will be zero soon.

About 15 years ago, when the powers that be brought in the ridiculous new rules for doubles (no ad scoring, no real 3rd set), I had an hour long conversation with Gayle Bradshaw (head of officiating for the ATP) about these changes to doubles (and about shotspot/hawkeye). He was telling me that the new doubles format will have the top players playing doubles much more often. I said "No way. They'll play doubles for the first 3 months, to help you sell the new format, and that's it - we'll see them in doubles very rarely after that."
He was insistent that it would bring the top players in to play lots more doubles. I was insistent that it would not.
What has happened since then speaks for itself.

Granted, at that time (around 2006), the top players were no longer playing doubles. But I knew that the new doubles format would keep them away even more, not bring them in. Because the new format reduced doubles to being a circus sideshow. None of the doubles players at the time were happy with the new format - they hated it (I asked them).

[ponchi101]

Mid 90's and Jim Courier played one tournament in which they used No-Ad scoring (it was singles). His comments after the event were pretty definitive in the ATP not trying that again (something along the lines of "this is not tennis").

[Suliso]

I'd like to see a serious professional match with only one serve and no lets. There is a lot of speculation, but would be curious to see how exactly would it change the game.

[ponchi101]

With the current quality of returns, 50% of games would be broken, in the ATP. WTA would be around 60%.
But I agree. I would like to see that.

[JazzNU]

I say this as a much bigger fan of Naomi's than I am of Ash. But I'm noticing a lot of amnesia on Twitter in the Naomi #1 ranking convo. I get it. But also, let's be real here too. She's winning, so the rest is getting ignored.

Naomi played Cincy and the US Open and nothing else til getting to Australia this year. I think she played a grand total of 4 tournaments the entire year. She played possibly one or two more tournaments than Ash Barty did in all of 2020. And the last two matches we watched Naomi play in the beginning of 2020 before this hiatus? Her in a serious MOOD having a mini meltdown versus Coco at the Aussie Open and then her having a much bigger meltdown in tears losing to a a Spanish player at Fed Cup (not CSN, possibly Tormo).

Naomi clearly used the time off to get her head together more than it was, and the tour is much better for it. But let's chill a bit on the rest, everything will eventually fall into it's proper place. Yes, Naomi probably would be number one in a normal year, but there's legitimately no way to know that. And ignoring that this last year hasn't been normal in any way and that different players used the hiatus and the point freeze to their advantage in different ways is unnecessary.

Naomi played great Down Under. Full stop. She'll be #1 soon enough if she continues to play anywhere near this level when there are more tournaments. Right now, and remembering we're still in a pandemic and diminishing that we are isn't necessary or helpful, I wish we could just be happy with the exceptional level of play we've seen out of Naomi in recent months and leave it at that.

[ponchi101]

I think these are only numerical fidgeting. Who is #1? Barty. Who is the best player RIGHT NOW? I don't think there is any doubt it is Naomi. And she will get to it again soon, as you say.

[Suliso]

Current top 10 under 20 in both WTA and ATP (from live rankings as of today)

ATP

#34 Jannik Sinner (ITA) 19.5
#115 Lorenzo Musetti (ITA) 18.9
#129 Carlos Alcaraz (ESP) 17.8
#142 Brandon Nakashima (USA) 19.5
#282 Chun Hsin Tseng (TPE) 19.5
#289 Juan Manuel Cerundolo (ARG) 19.2
#310 Jack Draper (GBR) 19.1
#328 Jiri Lehecka (CZE) 19.3
#334 Giulio Zeppieri (ITA) 19.2
#359 Jonas Firejtek (CZE) 19.91

For me the top three on this list stand clearly above every else, but clearly I would not rule out someone being a slightly later bloomer and zooming up the rankings this year or the next.

WTA

#16 Iga Swiatek (POL) 19.7
#32 Amanda Anisimova (USA) 19.4
#38 Cori Gauff (USA) 16.9
#80 Marta Kostyuk (UKR) 18.6
#87 Leylah Fernandez (CAN) 18.4
#88 Anastasia Potapova (RUS) 19.9
#118 Catherine McNally (USA) 19.2
#127 Xiyu Wang (CHN) 19.9
#139 Clara Tauson (DEN) 18.1
#153 Kamilla Rakhimova (RUS) 19.4

Again the top 3 is way more accomplished than those who follow albeit again I feel several others would have been in the top 100 or top 50 had we had a normal season and rankings last year.

Overall there are 4 players from USA, 3 from Italy, 2 each from Russia and Czechia with others being a one off.

[ponchi101]

Interesting that the women are still doing so much better than the men, in terms of young players reaching higher rankings.