Talk About Tennis 2.0

Of course it's not a guarantee plus there is rarely a difference between say #5 and #7. Other factors would be surface, h2h and recent form.

Also look at Djokovic. Does he win because he's #1? No, he's #1 because he wins so often. Not the same thing.

here is an example - Giorgi - she is not ranked high but she is the best player left in the Merida draw, I believe. Point is, it is our knowledge of tennis that tells us this, that we should trust... the ranking is not relevant. someone here said Linette would win, because she is the highest ranked.. that is a total nonsequiteur, I would think.

Suliso wrote: ↑Sat Feb 25, 2023 1:40 pm Also look at Djokovic. Does he win because he's #1? No, he's #1 because he wins so often. Not the same thing.

He is the #1 player in the world because he is that good and his record states that. That is why rankings need to be a part of the system.The same goes for Iga. I think though rankings can work alongside with other factors as well such as what court surface or h2h.

ashkor87 wrote: ↑Sat Feb 25, 2023 2:32 pm here is an example - Giorgi - she is not ranked high but she is the best player left in the Merida draw, I believe. Point is, it is our knowledge of tennis that tells us this, that we should trust... the ranking is not relevant. someone here said Linette would win, because she is the highest ranked.. that is a total nonsequiteur, I would think.

I think that's why we watch tennis so we can understand how a player is currently playing or how they play on a certain surface compared to another surface or what their h2h match ups are against other opponents in the draw. It seemed to give an advantage Giorgi in Merida. Once I started watching some of the matches, I thought that the courts were setting up well for Siniakova and she has done rather well.

I really don't understand the people (person, actually) constantly whining about rankings...
Rankings are not, and were never meant to be, a predictor of who would win a given match. So why complain (constantly) about a problem that doesn't even exist?

Rankings are an indicator of past achievements - up to the very recent past. This is made very clear, so as to not confuse anyone. People who follow tennis, in particular, should know this. Rankings are not an indication of future achievements - nor do they ever pretend to be - because future achievements cannot be predicted, they can only be guessed at.
Rankings are also a reward for those past achievements in the form of seedings for tournaments, which are designed to give a certain 'advantage' to the seeded players.

So... I suppose one can continue to whine about rankings, but, from my perspective, those complaints hold no water, as they target a 'problem' that does not exist.

Deuce wrote: ↑Sun Feb 26, 2023 6:44 am I really don't understand the people (person, actually) constantly whining about rankings...
Rankings are not, and were never meant to be, a predictor of who would win a given match. So why complain (constantly) about a problem that doesn't even exist?

Rankings are an indicator of past achievements - up to the very recent past. This is made very clear, so as to not confuse anyone. People who follow tennis, in particular, should know this. Rankings are not an indication of future achievements - nor do they ever pretend to be - because future achievements cannot be predicted, they can only be guessed at.
Rankings are also a reward for those past achievements in the form of seedings for tournaments, which are designed to give a certain 'advantage' to the seeded players.

So... I suppose one can continue to whine about rankings, but, from my perspective, those complaints hold no water, as they target a 'problem' that does not exist.

This is exactly why rankings need to be part of the game. Not as an indicator of who is going to win the current match up, but to look at past achievements.

Rankings are used in just about every sport there is. The last big event was the Super Bowl in America. Most people were saying that the Philadelphia Eagles were the better team all season long due to the way they played throughout the entire season. They certainly were not the best team standing on the field on the Super Bowl Day. That achievement went to the Kansas City Chiefs. This did not take anything away from the achievements the Philadelphia Eagles had during the season.

Another example and this is probably the biggest prime example of rankings that go down every year in a sporting event and that is in the NCAA Basketball Tournament. They even call the tournament March Madness because of all of the upsets that occur along the way. They still have to use the seasons achievements of the teams entered into the tournament to rank them, but it rarely goes according to plan.

This is why rankings have to coexist with the game. They are not a determination of who is going to win each match. That is what they play the game for. It is just an indicator of past results. That is it.

Which is precisely right

I missed this last week, but Taylor Fritz is now ranked 5, and is the first American top 5 player since Andy Roddick in 2009.

Not much movement on the WTA front with most players resting up for the Sunshine Double. The top 22 spots stayed the same, but several players in the top 100 reached career high rankings; Zhu (33), Kostyuk (40), McNally (73), Volynets (74), Bonaventure (84), Rakhimova (89)

Nadal will fall outside the top 10 after Indian Wells - his French Open seeding could be very interesting.

He will fall out of the top 10 for the first time in over 900 weeks, the second longest after Martina's 1,000. A fine record, and one that perhaps be set for the men.

ponchi101 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 06, 2023 3:14 pm He will fall out of the top 10 for the first time in over 900 weeks, the second longest after Martina's 1,000. A fine record, and one that perhaps be set for the men.

AND keeping in mind, it took multiple horrible injuries for Rafa's top 10 reign to end.

i hate showing respect for Pirate Pants. But, I mean....and, LOL, good look for anyone to take Rafa's record for Roland Garros titles. That is the record that is so ridiculous to me.

We're going to be seeing, for a long time, how Rafa, Roger, and Voldemort are freaks.

nelslus wrote: ↑Tue Mar 07, 2023 8:30 pm ...

We're going to be seeing, for a long time, how Rafa, Roger, and Voldemort are freaks.

I had never thought about it this way. Completely correct.
It will take a long time for people to come back to the normal that any player with 6 slams is a GREAT PLAYER.

It also helps that courts around the world are getting similar in speed..a good player can win all the tournaments he enters...not so much among the women, though! Maybe Swiatek...

In earlier days, there were clay court specialists like Bruguera and Costa .or even grass specialists. There are hardly any specialists any more, men or women..