Jokers win over federer in the 2010 us open Semi was..

[gregboy55]

His first win against a top 10 player all year!!!

what??? are they serious??

During the telecast of the US open this morning, a quiz question came up :

Q - how many wins has novak had over top 10 players this year?
A - 0

0!!!!!!!

up untill he played roger

 

[matt_897]

Yep, it shows much of a joke his draws have been and also some of the horrible losses he has this year. Credit to him for picking up his form in New York. Now it looks he'll get away with some of the poor play earlier in the year.

 

[gregboy55]

i just cant belive it.. and he went up to 2nd from 3rd without ever beating a top 10 player in 2010 wow..

 

[mad_eagle]

Caroline Wozniacki hasn't beaten a top 10 player (or was it top 5...can't remember) all year and she is number two in the world.

Kim Clijsters wins the US Open, beats Zvonareva to a pulp, yet Zvonareva somehow jumps above Clijsters in the rankings?!? wtf...

http://www.sonyericssonwtatour.com/page/RankingsSingles/0,,12781~0~1~100,00.html

I know it's all about the amount of ranking points defended at tournaments from your previous years results etc. but that just ain't right!!!

 

[gregboy55]

Caroline Wozniacki hasn't beaten a top 10 player (or was it top 5...can't remember) all year and she is number two in the world.

Kim Clijsters wins the US Open, beats Zvonareva to a pulp, yet Zvonareva somehow jumps above Clijsters in the rankings?!? wtf...

http://www.sonyericssonwtatour.com/page/RankingsSingles/0,,12781~0~1~100,00.html

I know it's all about the amount of ranking points defended at tournaments from your previous years results etc. but that just ain't right!!!

Yeah i heard about Clijsters dropping ranking after winning a major

I understand the whole defending points thing and think to a certain extent its a good system, but i think u have to reward a player that wins the slam 2 years in a row rather than get nothing..

 

[Barwick17]

Yeah i heard about Clijsters dropping ranking after winning a major

I understand the whole defending points thing and think to a certain extent its a good system, but i think u have to reward a player that wins the slam 2 years in a row rather than get nothing..

First of all those 2 grand slams brought her around $3,000,000.

Second of all the success rives her sponsorship dollars through the roof with rewards

Thirdly its not like shes ranked 70th, she is near the top and will take over when she keeps gaining points in tournaments

Fourthly she has he name and photos on the wall of these tournaments as a past champion for life.

So continue on with your 'nothing reward' comments

 

[hirdy_is_champ]

All you people who don't like the rankings system, give us a better alternative or shut up. If you look at the race points for the season you'll see that Kim is ranked 3.

It's like Serena Williams complaining about Safina being #1 without a slam.

 

[gregboy55]

First of all those 2 grand slams brought her around $3,000,000.

Second of all the success rives her sponsorship dollars through the roof with rewards

Thirdly its not like shes ranked 70th, she is near the top and will take over when she keeps gaining points in tournaments

Fourthly she has he name and photos on the wall of these tournaments as a past champion for life.

So continue on with your 'nothing reward' comments

i more meant, no reward points and ranking wise

 

[LukeParkerno1]

The problem is the difefrence between the Masters Series and the Grand Slams. The points difference is not enough. There should be 5,000 points on offer for the Grand slam, not 3,000. The Masters series are too high, pretty sure I heard it was around 1900 give and take a bit for a Masters series win. So you could win 2 Masters series..and still get more points than winning a slam. Something is not right. Wozniaki is a plodder, and the reality is she has just got the no1 till the big guns come back (Henin/Sharapova/Williams 1&2/Dementieva/Clijsters)

 

[matt_897]

The problem is the difefrence between the Masters Series and the Grand Slams. The points difference is not enough. There should be 5,000 points on offer for the Grand slam, not 3,000. The Masters series are too high, pretty sure I heard it was around 1900 give and take a bit for a Masters series win. So you could win 2 Masters series..and still get more points than winning a slam. Something is not right. Wozniaki is a plodder, and the reality is she has just got the no1 till the big guns come back (Henin/Sharapova/Williams 1&2/Dementieva/Clijsters)

Wrong. 2,000 points for a Grand Slam, 1000 points for a Masters 1000 (hence, the 1000 in the title...). So double the points which i think is fair enough between the importance of the slams while keeping the importance of ATP's own tournaments, who are the ones who do the actual rankings.

 

[Rabbit of Caerbannog]

The points difference is not enough. There should be 5,000 points on offer for the Grand slam, not 3,000. The Masters series are too high, pretty sure I heard it was around 1900 give and take a bit for a Masters series win.

Are you ever right about ANYTHING? 1900 points for a Masters 1000 title

 

[LukeParkerno1]

Wrong. 2,000 points for a Grand Slam, 1000 points for a Masters 1000 (hence, the 1000 in the title...). So double the points which i think is fair enough between the importance of the slams while keeping the importance of ATP's own tournaments, who are the ones who do the actual rankings.

Fair enough. Still not enough. Should be as follows:

Grand Slam- 4,000

Masters- 1,000

Tier 1- 700

etc.

That way you reward players that perform in the biggest tournaments. The current model means 2 Masters series wins is the same as 1 grand slam. As I said it stinks.

 

[Total Power]

Fair enough. Still not enough. Should be as follows:

Grand Slam- 4,000

Masters- 1,000

Tier 1- 700

etc.

That way you reward players that perform in the biggest tournaments. The current model means 2 Masters series wins is the same as 1 grand slam. As I said it stinks.

back in the old days winning a masters series title was much more difficult. You had to play 4 3 rounds minimum and a best of 5 set final.These days, players start off with a first round bye and then play best of 3 set final.Total disgrace..i personally dont know neither Rafa nor Fed gives a shit if they win or lose a masters series title.Rafa surely looked lost in cinci and toronto.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

Well in my view, they play best of 5, or they up the points at Slams. Take your pick.

 

[Total Power]

Well in my view, they play best of 5, or they up the points at Slams. Take your pick.

i agree, masters series events are certainly not worth 50% of a grandslam. How can it be 50% when roger and rafa and other top players make halfhearted attempts to win it? in case of some other top players, they dont even bother to turn up.Cue Andy Roddick on clay.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

Pretty much, should be 1/3rd at the ABSOLUTE MOST.

 

[Dipper]

i more meant, no reward points and ranking wise

I think you're looking at it the wrong way.

This year, 2010, they're all competing and earning points for tournaments, at the end of the year the number of points that they earn will determine their year end rankings.

So going into the US Open Zvonerava was some way ahead of Clijsters in terms of points earned this year but by winning the title she caught up with her to some degree.

But their current rankings are made up of the points accrued in the last year from now, so Clijsters won the US Open last year and thus she loses those points as it is now over a year ago but she replaces them with exactly the same number of points for winning it this year.Zvonerava by getting to the final obviously replaced whatever points she made their in 2009 with a higher number of points for making the final and this is how she has pulled ahead of Clijsters.

Watch out for Federer's ranking after the Australian Open in 2011 if he does badly, he won it this year and will therefore be defending those points, if he goes out in say the QF and the likes of Murray and ND do well then he could find himself at number 4 in the world or perhaps even worse if he has a bad finish to this year too.

IMO it's a pretty good system, I think double the points for Grand Slams is fair enough.The bloke who is number 1 by a country mile has played less tournaments than pretty much everyone else and he's done that by dominating the GS's mainly and obviously carving up the clay court season too.

 

[gregboy55]

I think you're looking at it the wrong way.

This year, 2010, they're all competing and earning points for tournaments, at the end of the year the number of points that they earn will determine their year end rankings.

So going into the US Open Zvonerava was some way ahead of Clijsters in terms of points earned this year but by winning the title she caught up with her to some degree.

But their current rankings are made up of the points accrued in the last year from now, so Clijsters won the US Open last year and thus she loses those points as it is now over a year ago but she replaces them with exactly the same number of points for winning it this year.Zvonerava by getting to the final obviously replaced whatever points she made their in 2009 with a higher number of points for making the final and this is how she has pulled ahead of Clijsters.

Watch out for Federer's ranking after the Australian Open in 2011 if he does badly, he won it this year and will therefore be defending those points, if he goes out in say the QF and the likes of Murray and ND do well then he could find himself at number 4 in the world or perhaps even worse if he has a bad finish to this year too.

IMO it's a pretty good system, I think double the points for Grand Slams is fair enough.The bloke who is number 1 by a country mile has played less tournaments than pretty much everyone else and he's done that by dominating the GS's mainly and obviously carving up the clay court season too.

yeah fair enough and as i said, it is a good system in the sence that we dont have another sampras sitting on top for 10 years, players actually have to back up their results if they want to stay up in the rankings.

Having said that, i cant see rafa finishing no 1 at the end of 2011 with murray, fed or joker having reasonable years, which i dont think is all that fair.

so yeah i just wouldnt like to c rafa win 3 grand slams next year and finnish 2nd

 

[matt_897]

i agree, masters series events are certainly not worth 50% of a grandslam. How can it be 50% when roger and rafa and other top players make halfhearted attempts to win it? in case of some other top players, they dont even bother to turn up.Cue Andy Roddick on clay.

But remember the slams are ITF run. Not ATP run which is what the rankings are run by. The ATP would not like to dilute their product like that. Hence, why they have changed it to Masters 1000 series a few years ago. The ATP have got to try to make sure that their product can be popular, and one of the main reason for that to happen is to make sure that these particular tournaments (Masters 1000) have importance to the rankings. They have got a good balance, i feel, 50% is about right. Most players still give all/most of what they got, look at Rafa and his domiantion of the clay court swing, looked to me he gaved a shit then. They give more than a half hearted attempt to win it, despite the way Novak plays, he's trying...

 

[Total Power]

But remember the slams are ITF run. Not ATP run which is what the rankings are run by. The ATP would not like to dilute their product like that. Hence, why they have changed it to Masters 1000 series a few years ago. The ATP have got to try to make sure that their product can be popular, and one of the main reason for that to happen is to make sure that these particular tournaments (Masters 1000) have importance to the rankings. They have got a good balance, i feel, 50% is about right. Most players still give all/most of what they got, look at Rafa and his domiantion of the clay court swing, looked to me he gaved a shit then. They give more than a half hearted attempt to win it, despite the way Novak plays, he's trying...

Rafa on clay is a different kettle of fish.Everyone expects him to win and he is a long long way ahead of everyone.Even halfhearted attempts are good enough for him to win on clay.There is a lot of pressure on rafa to perform well on clay otherwise people will start telling stories like...he is on a decline blah blah.

Have a look at masters series events in cinci or montreal do you think he could give a shit? Roger couldnt give a about masters events till he realised he might drop to number 3 for the US open and even worse after the US open.

 

[blueinfinity]

That way you reward players that perform in the biggest tournaments. The current model means 2 Masters series wins is the same as 1 grand slam. As I said it stinks.

Ok, for all the people who are carping on about the Masters:

Since the start of 2004 (the Federer era) there have been 61 Masters tournaments.

45 have been won by Slam champs.
11 have been won by Slam finalists.
only 5 have been won by guys who've never made a slam final.

The players who win the Masters are the same ones who "perform in the biggest tournaments". So messing about with the points awarded would accomplish exactly **** all.