next »

[Joe]

I don't understand - if he can have an easy year over two year rankings, then he can have an easy half a year over one year rankings. What's the difference.
With Djokovic, I'm sure he was asked if he's upset about losing the number 3 spot, so he probably replied, quite sensibly, that although he's upset it wasn't so bad since in this period he's been playing very well, and has won a tourney, and reached three masters semis.

Djokovic said something about the rankings being 'cruel'.

I'm not totally sure what Nadal's on about, not sure anyone is really.

[scotsgeek28]

I dislike Djokovic intensely.  Petulant, arrogant, and boring, his tennis powerful but uninspiring....I doubt he will ever reach a higher ranking than 3 in his whole career.

[Mark]

Murray:

There always seem to be problems and now it's obviously the rankings.

It's great that Novak's done well the last few weeks but the first three or four months of the year I played a lot better than him so I think the rankings reflect very well how the guys are playing.

Until this week I've never heard anyone complain. I think maybe only in the last week it's become a problem for Novak.

I understand what Rafa's saying with the two year thing.

It's kind of like in golf where there's not so much pressure every single week to play.

[Torin]

I think what Rafa means is that by accumulating results over 2 years you reduce the volatility of the rankings; one bad result or one missed tournament is a smaller percentage of your total, so the pressure to play if you're carrying an injury is reduced. I can see where he's coming from, but I think there are better ways of revamping the ranking system to achieve the same result.

The way it's written Nole seems to be being a ****, although I'm always wary of taking these things out of context.

Philip - yes, Andy would have been world number 1 prior to the Aussie Open this year based on a 6-month ranking. Which is kind of stupid given that there was no clay or grass in that ranking. Also, this wouldn't fix what Nole's winging about - you've still got points dropping off as sharply as they come on.

In theory, it would arguably be better if results were given a linear decay rather than a step drop after 1 year, so as results slip further into the past their impact on rankings gradually diminishes. This leaves a problem in terms of the weight of different surfaces changing throughout the year though.