Here’s a list of ATP ranking points (as of 2009) from grand slams:
Winner: 2,000 points
Finalist: 1,200 points
Semifinalists: 720
Quarterfinals: 360
Fourth round: 180
Third round: 90
Second round: 45
First round: 10
and 25 additional points for qualifying.
So Nadal got 2,000 points for winning last year and will get 360 this year. (I wish analysts would not describe this kind of situation as ‘defending your points,’ because that only makes things more confusing.) Djokovic lost in the quarters last year (so 360 for him, too). If Federer loses to Davydenko and Djokovic wins the tournament, then I think he can pass Federer.
1 Federer, Roger (SUI) 10,550
2 Nadal, Rafael (ESP) 9,310
3 Djokovic, Novak (SRB) 8,310
4 Murray, Andy (GBR) 6,780
5 Del Potro, Juan Martin (ARG) 6,580
6 Davydenko, Nikolay (RUS) 4,930
If Fed goes out in the semis he still gets 720, which would give him 11,270. If Djokovic wins he would get 2000, which would give him 10,310.
Am I correct in assuming that is the way the points work? Do they carry over from year to year?
My apologies for being a bit dense here, but if I understand what you and Marley are saying;
Fed has 10,550 going into the AO, he loses the 1,200 points he won last year so he is down to 9,350. He gets taken out in the quarterfinals, resulting in only 360 new points. So a total of 9,710.
Djokovic had 8,310, minus the 360 he earned for the AO 2008, leaving him with 7,950. If he wins, he gets the 2,000 pts. Brings him up to 9,950, and takes over the #1 spot from Fed.
I had no idea that is how the points worked at the pro level. Thanks for fighting a little more ignorance today!
I don’t see how anyone who’s watched Nadal through the years could think for a second that he’d invent an injury to quit any tournament, let alone a major. “Come up with a mysterious knee injury”? Come off it. He’s had trouble with his knees for ages; he was unable to defend his Wimbledon crown last year because of them.
Sometimes you can look just a little too hard for controversy, y’know?
We’re talking about the 52-week rankings, so the points expire after one year. Next Monday all the points from the 2009 Australian Open will be cycled out and the new ones will be in. You’ve got it right in your last post, abbeytxs.
If Federer loses in the semis - he’s not there yet, although I think he’ll beat Davydenko in four - he would get 720 points. But you have to take out his 1,200 from a year ago. That would leave him with 10,070. Nadal is going to drop from 9,310 to 7,670, so it looks like he will definitely fall to #3, behind Federer and Djokovic (who, if he lost tonight, would still have 8,310) in either order. Murray could get to 8,600 if he wins the tournament, which would make him #2 or #3 and bump Nadal to #4.
Marley23, do you like Tennis point system better than golf formula of ranking players?
Without getting too specific, the **Official World Golf Rankings **uses a 2 yr time frame for their time period. When a player earns points, they start to depreciate after three months until they eventually get to zero.
IMO the key difference between Tennis and golf rankings are:
Golf rankings are not downward sensitive, players seldom lose more than two spots in the rankings in each update, even with a bad performance
Players can and do move up in t he rankings with
golf rankings are more sensitive to recent performance, because the first three months are spoilage free
I’d never put a lot of thought into how the rankings work, other than explaining a little bit about them when Dinara Safina “didn’t deserve to be” number one last year. But a 52-week system probably works better for tennis than it would for golf. All tennis events are tournaments and a two-year system would probably make it harder for younger players to get their rankings up and enter the big ones. Tennis careers are also a lot shorter.
I agree. However, if his knee was seriously giving him trouble, I’m sure it’s not far from his mind that he was out 6 months the last time he ignored it and played on.
I love to watch Nadal play. Unfortunately, his style of play does not lend itself to longevity, esp on hard courts. I just hope he’s healthy for the French so I can watch him craft his magic on clay.
Between Baghdatis and Nadal, I was really disappointed to see what I’d hoped to be really incredible matches fizzle and die.
DSY, ahh, I didn’t where Opal likes to be. I do now. Thanks.
As far as the golf rankings go, I would be happy to clarify if you could ask a specific question. I have been following the rankings pretty closely for the last 18 months. This is probably not the thread to do it though. PM me if you have a some questions, I will try to clarify,
We’ve seen this so many times, but jeez, every time Serena looks like shit in a late match in a major and you wonder why she even bothered to take the court, she suddenly storms back. She’s now up a break on Azarenka in the third set and looks like she’s ready to steamroll to the end. Winner gets Li Na, not Venus.
So it’s looking unlikely that I am going to see Federer and Davydenko, but who knows.
The joke with ‘Hi Opal’ was that it had to be third in a list of exactly three items. OpalCat likes to be left out of it- she got tired of the joke many moons ago.
Davydenko absolutely ate Federer’s lunch in the first set and the early part of the second, but Federer is turning things around for now - Federer broke Davdenko’s serve to even the set and is now up 4-3 on serve.
I slept through the Fed match, but woke up in time for Tsonga/Djokovic!! I predict we are going to see a lot more of Tsonga in the next few years. He is so much fun to watch, and you can just see him maturing quickly out on the court.
Djokovic had yet another one of his many physical meltdowns and Tsonga did an awesome job of not letting any of it get to him. He just kept taking it to Nole to the very end.
As much as I love watching Fed play, I’m hoping Tsonga wins AO.
