Rankings - 1 year or 2 years worth of results?

Myth111 · Post #1 » by **Myth111** » Wed Feb 8, 2012 11:33 pm

http://espn.go.com/tennis/story/_/id/75 ... ur-trouble

I have to say that I am 100% in favour of the current system. I want the rankings to reflect the quality of the players now and not be impacted by how good somebody was in two years. Tiger Woods continued to be at the top for several months when everybody knew he should not have been there. All it does is reward people for being good in the past while punishing people who are good now.

I am interested in what you guys think.

Marmoset · Post #2 » by **Marmoset** » Thu Feb 9, 2012 3:49 am

Absolutely one year. Your example is one of the best reasons: a guy who basically didn't even play remained number one in golf for months.

A two-year system can help guys who miss a couple of months, but punishes players with long-term injuries because it would take a very long time to regain that ranking (e.g. del Potro). It also makes it much harder for younger players to break through. Tomic and Raonic wouldn't be top 40 players on a 2-year system, which is ridiculous because it's obvious just by watching their play over the last year that this is exactly what they are.

On a two-year system, Nadal might still be #1, which would also be ridiculous because it's been clear for a while that Djokovic is the best player in the world.

Post #3 » by **Doctor MJ** » Tue Feb 14, 2012 2:58 am

Well to me this is about when the advantage of sample size meets the disadvantage of player shift. So it comes down to how much luck is involved in the results relative to how quickly players typically peak.

In golf, where there is a RIDICULOUS amount of luck in every tournament, and players can keep playing forever, it makes sense to use a longer time base for rankings. Not so for tennis.