Well, he is in the prime of his career and it’s time for him to go for it.

He won the AO last 2011 and only missed by 1. He’s off to a flier again, Ajde!

So full of confidence too. At least go for the Djoker Slam and join the Career Slam Club. I think he’ll do it.

February 7th, 2012 at 10:39 pm

fed and rafa missed the opportunity of winning 4 slams in a row. If nole can win the french, he will separate himself from the two.

Even though he does not have as many slams as the latter, to win a Nole slam will be one of the biggest achievement in decades.

February 7th, 2012 at 10:50 pm

Interesting article at ESPN: if the ranking system were a two-year one, Rafa would still be number one, even if Nole won 3 of the last 4 slams and went on a 41 (or 2 or 3) match winning streak last year. The article has an imaginary ranking chart to illustrate. I don’t see how anyone could break through in a system like this!

http://espn.go.com/tennis/story/_/id/7552875/tennis-double-ranking-period-atp-tour-trouble

February 8th, 2012 at 12:17 am

“ESPN: if the ranking system were a two-year one, Rafa would still be number one”

Always said that this 2 year thing was all about Rafa. I mean really, does anyone think here Rafa should be # 1 as of now? Laughable.

And per the article…also-

“the biggest knock against the two-year system has been that it slows the climb of up-and-comers. Federer cited this as a major reason for opposing the change, and the numbers bear this out. ”

Execellant read Jane, thanks. Gives some good insight with good research on the dubious insidious idea and for whom it benefits.

February 8th, 2012 at 12:42 am

Sure, the system would benefit Rafa now, but looking the other way, it also would’ve taken him a lot longer to get to number one. It sounds like Rafa’s main concerns are for injured players, and for allowing players to have longer careers. These are good concerns, and I don’t think Rafa is wrong or selfish to think of them. He generally thinks along these lines – the same concerns affect his talk about the schedule too. He wants to see players play longer and with less injury. Nothing evil in that!

However, the biggest drawbacks methinks are these:

(a) It would be really difficult for newcomers to break through with a two-year system like this.

(b) Not only would it protect injured players, who are arguably deserving of such protection, like Soda, Roddick, Nalby, but it would also protect players who are in a slump. Verdasco, Gulbis etc would benefit with this system, by hanging around longer near the top, even though their form and results are suffering Meanwhile, young whipper-snappers who are performing well would not be climbing the rankings to reflect that.

Which brings me to what the biggest concern is I think…

(c) The rankings wouldn’t reflect current performance. Hence it would be like a WTA scenario wherein the players who win the slams aren’t necessarily at the top. Moreover, the players who hadn’t done as well as others over the past 12 months would still be near the top whereas those who’d been consistently doing well would be struggling to see that reflected in their ranking. This would create a disjunction between the rankings and the present and it would confuse tennis fans, especially casual fans of the sport.

I know I am repeating the articles points, but just trying to pull out the key elements that struck me as interesting.

I think the cons outweight the pros. And honestly, it has nothing to do with Nole being number 1 right now, because if anything this system would’ve benefited him this year.

February 8th, 2012 at 1:14 am

p.s. glad you liked the article skeezer; I just found it interesting to see it broken down the way she did it. She does imply it would benefit Rafa *now* if it had already been implemented in the past, but I think it would actually benefit Nole were they to change it soon. So I guess it benefits whomever is at/near the top when and if the change were to take effect. But the write sounds doubtful that it will.

February 8th, 2012 at 1:18 am

jane: cheers for an interesting article. But after reading it, I do hope 2 year system never gets adopted. What a disincentive for players like Raonic and Nishikori. They would surely feel they had to climb Mount Everest before their excellent play started to show up in the rankings.

February 8th, 2012 at 2:58 am

How about the year ending master’s event? only the top eight players have the change to make up to 1,500 points…how are you supposed to break into the top 10? The other guys don’t even have a chance to compete? It’s the only by-invitation-only event…therefore there shouldn’t be any points awarded!

I like http://www.fit-2-hit.com

February 8th, 2012 at 4:10 am

This is why the Arroturds need to support me at the French Open. Or your GOAT becomes 2nd best in his generation.

I know in a few weeks, all the fans of The Arrogant One will be out of the woodworks claiming their guy is the favorite for the French Open. He never was, never is and never will be. Repeat this 100 times to get into your skull.

Peace.

February 8th, 2012 at 9:57 am

@jane:

There is just one point you forgot to mention: Rafa wasn’t advocating the two years ranking system when he was the no 2.

February 8th, 2012 at 10:30 am

mat4, do you mean he wasn’t advocating it until he was the no. 2? I first heard Rafa bring this up last year after he lost the #1 rank to Nole. One reason I never liked the idea: it seems very self-serving.

February 8th, 2012 at 12:00 pm

Bad timing on Rafa’s part to recommend the two-year ranking system when it appears that this would favor his retaining the number 1 ranking over Djokovic who was clearly more deserving. He may have good motivations for advocating it but it does appear rather self-serving because of what would result had it been promulgated. I don’t like the two-year system because it will result in somebody playing poorly yet retaining a higher ranking. It would seem like a travesty if Nadal was ranked 1st and Djokovic 2nd at the end of 2011.

February 8th, 2012 at 12:36 pm

Bad idea- 2 yr ranking system.

The way it is, is a true reflection of what’s happening now. Nole is #1, just won AO, he must defend now to remain there. Rafa is #2 – that’s where he should be…and on and on. Slackers like Gulbis don’t get to be rewarded for winning something a year ago…

Really, I hope the 2 year ranking never happens. It makes it impossible for someone climbing the ranks – ridiculous nonsense.

About the schedule too. There’s nothing wrong with the atp calendar. Individuals can already play less if they choose to. Confused ?? They had almost a month off between the last DC 2011 and the start of the January 2012 new atp calendar. Now, if they chose not to play DC, Rotterdam, S. American clay swing, and Dubai, they have nearly a month before IW. Isn’t it early in the year to be complaining about the schedule? Usually this happens in the late fall.

February 8th, 2012 at 12:48 pm

The rolling one year system does put pressure on those at the top to play, possibly thru injury, to retain points, but for the players that aren’t at the top there is a huge financial disparity, which, only a higher ranking can alleviate. If it takes that much longer to get to the top and start earning some real money younger, more talented players would be discouraged. I read recently that at Indian wells, players who don’t make it past the first round don’ t even cover travel and entry costs to the event.

February 8th, 2012 at 1:03 pm

Andrea, you bring up a good point. First round results should at least cover the average entrance fee, travel, and lodging costs. I also wonder whether tournaments reimburse potential “lucky losers” who have to stick around for a few days but don’t get the opportunity to play.

February 8th, 2012 at 1:22 pm

Oops, meant “winnings from first round results”

February 8th, 2012 at 1:22 pm

approx 1800 +players on tour, approx 200 make a living at it. that leaves the rest on Loans, limited sponsorships, money from relatives, etc. Some stay at local housing by the graces of volunteers form the local tourneys. Fed has earned 60 mil or so, Nole over 20 mil, Rafa 34. Would be nice if they could annually donate a little to a fund that would help some of these guys just starting out to get started. Help tennis GROW :).
My numbers are est. so feel free to tackle them if you must,

Of course, then one of these kids who is being helped out beats one of the top players, then watch the water spicket get turned off in a heartbeat, lol.

February 8th, 2012 at 1:57 pm

My friend the psychic analyzed Djokovic’s chart and told me that Nole will be very successful and winning important titles until May of 2012. After May of this year she does see him being competitive but things will change. She does not see him winning Roland Garros this year, unfortunately.

February 8th, 2012 at 2:01 pm

skeezer i completely agree,after all the yougsters of today are the future of tennis tomorrow,as a brit ive found it so frustating and dissapointing that not enough has been done to develope tennis on the boys/mens side of the game,but great to see the girls/women making a break through,the likes of keothavong,baltacha,in the top 100,and watson and robson just outside the top 100,and with a chance of breaking into the top 100,and our girl keothavong beat cibulkova yesterday,whos a top 20 player,a fantastic win,just surprised as it passed by,without anybody giving it a second thought.

February 8th, 2012 at 2:35 pm

She also told me Murray will have the best year of his career, so far, and sees him winning at least a slam in 2012(Wimbledon or USO).

She sees Nadal winning the FO but he will struggle with injuries after that.

She does not see Federer winning anymore slams.

Del Potro will win a slam in 2012 or in 2013(USO).

February 8th, 2012 at 2:38 pm

jamie: Who does the psychic predict to win the remaining Grand Slams in 2012? She said Nadal for FO.. how about for the other two?

February 8th, 2012 at 2:40 pm

jamie im getting deja vu.

February 8th, 2012 at 2:40 pm

Jamie, did she make a prediction for the Olympics?

February 8th, 2012 at 2:45 pm

She sees Murray winning either Wimbledon or the USO but he is DEFINITELY winning one of those 2 slams.

February 8th, 2012 at 2:51 pm

BTW, she predicted Djokovic would win Wimbledon and USO last year and AO this year. She was right.

February 8th, 2012 at 2:52 pm

krishna where have you been,you would have to have been living on planet mars,or with absolutely no access to a computer,h/s has told us umpteen times,he must be blue in the face,murray will win wimbledon,and possibly the us open,or delpo will win the uso,and fed will win a big title in summer possibly a gold medal,but unfortunatly hes done as regards winning grand slams,nole will resume winning grand slams in 2013.but he will not dominate again like last year,nadull will fluke 1 more slam when he avoids nole the daddy,its basically the same post every time.

February 8th, 2012 at 2:54 pm

Cheer up, Alison. Murray will win a slam this year. :)

It will be a great year for the Murray fans.

February 8th, 2012 at 2:56 pm

jamie if rafa and muzza both win a slam this year, i will be doubly delighted as i am a fan of both,a double whamee,but dont you realise that half the fun and the excitement is the not knowing,the shear element of surprise.

February 8th, 2012 at 3:07 pm

4 the last 2yrs i’ve been hearing murray will win a major. until ic it happen???????. i would like 2c it happen. actually i would love 2c 4 different winners win a major. i’m not psychic, but i predict nadal & djokovic will continue to dominate. i am going by results

February 8th, 2012 at 3:09 pm

It will be a great year for the Murray fans.
—
It is the 2nd worst thing going around, after “The Arrogant One will win another slam” non sense.

Chokers are permanent.

February 8th, 2012 at 3:09 pm

sheila i agree if rafa wins rg again ,it would be fantastic especially for us brits for muzza to win wmby,and delpo to recapture his 2009 form and win the uso again,what a fantastic and open year that would be,however i just dont buy that a player of feds calibre is done winning slams yet,and he could surprise everybody,

February 8th, 2012 at 3:18 pm

Jamie what important titles will Nole win? If he’s not going to win the important RG and doesn’t win after May it looks like it’s all downhill.

February 8th, 2012 at 3:53 pm

no disrepect to jmdp as i do really like the guy,but we are all still waiting very patiently,after two and a half years for this so called big impression that everybody keeps on talking about to happen.

February 8th, 2012 at 3:57 pm

With JMDP it was a long process after wrist surgery late spring 2010. He came back Jan. 2011 ranked 400++ something, worked his way back to almost top 10, slowly gaining confidence in his forehand; and the serve is coming along, but it’s not what it was when he won USO 09. My concern is that he’s lost something mentally and some fire, emotionally. There were those disappointing losses at DC to Spain, also disappointing he couldn’t make the semi at AO. We’ll see. He’s still younger than anyone else in the top 10.

February 8th, 2012 at 4:30 pm

carlo yeah i see what you mean,to get back to the top 10 almost is a fantastic achievement dont get me wrong,but two and half years is a long time,and the game has moved on,it gets harder each year not easier,hes also loosing to lesser players in best of three matches and getting breathless easily too,and thats at such a young age too,i see him as the best of the rest,but i have my doubts about him ever reaching those heights again in best of 5 set slams,however like you say he has youth on his side,so hopefully he will prove men wrong,and believe me nothing would give me greater pleasureif he does,but the longer it goes on he harder it will get,sorry jmo.

February 8th, 2012 at 4:57 pm

I try to follow Delpo closely, alison. He’s one of my favorites, though I know some here are less than thrilled with his tennis. His forehand and serve are his bread and butter and he needs those working 100% to get to the top 5 like he had initially working his way up 2008 and 2009. Also why I liked him was his winning attitude. I remember reading about him in 2009, how he had always had confidence and felt growing up that he could beat the older better players. It showed in the way he took on Nadal and Federer in 2009. He does look like he’s got some fatigue issues but I’m not sure what that’s all about. He’s also known to perk up when looking dead, like he did during that US Open 5 set final beating Federer. Certainly he’s not going to outlast Djokovic or Nadal in a battle of attrition. But he could be right there ready to take down either, if he sensed some top seed blood, you know? That’s what I’m hoping.

February 8th, 2012 at 5:29 pm

Nice interview for Nole’s fans:

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/sport/tennis/4117585/Novak-Djokovic-It-would-be-cool-to-match-Rod-Laver-and-win-all-Grand-Slams-in-one-year.html

February 9th, 2012 at 12:47 am

Andy sounds very positive: good sign.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/tennis/16943432

February 9th, 2012 at 12:50 am

jane if nole were to win all 4 slams this year,that would also mean 6 grand slams in a row too,early days but atm anything looks possible with nole,has it ever been done before,the 6 in a row i mean?

February 9th, 2012 at 5:37 am

I heard from one of the commentators at the Australian Open that lower ranked players don’t get extra points anymore when they beat higher ranked players. He (or she?) added that had they kept the old system, Kvitova would have ended the year as number one because she beat high ranking players more than Wozniacki did. When did they change it to the current system? Is this the same with the men?

February 9th, 2012 at 7:48 am

alison, I don’t know if it has ever been done. I really doubt it will be as well. But I guess journalists will ask about it, and I like that Nole is staying optimistic about the year rather than thinking of it in a negative way as pressure and all that. One year, if not this year, it would be great if he could win the FO at some point so he has one of each. :) But mainly I just hope he stays healthy and can continue to compete for the big prize.

February 9th, 2012 at 9:41 am

Polo, I have never even heard of that! When did players get “extra” or more points for beating higher ranked players?? If that were the case, Nole would’ve racked em up last year. I cannot remember that being the case in all honesty.

February 9th, 2012 at 9:44 am

I heard about that years ago. Then during the AO it was mentioned again that Kvitova would have been number one last year if they continued that practice. I have to do some research now.

February 9th, 2012 at 9:54 am

jane the fo looks very interesting indeed,and nole along with rafa will be the favourites there,and both out to make history for very different reasons,nole out to make a career grand slam,and rafa to equal borg and laver on grand slams won,and also looking to surpass borg at rg,by winning the fo for a record 7th time,even as a rafa fan i would say nole has the edge atm,but even if he doesnt win the fo this year,i believe he will still do it at some point,all makes for an exciting few months leading up to it,can hardly wait.

February 9th, 2012 at 9:59 am

http://blogs.tennis.com/thewrap/2011/02/the-rally-the-rankings-explained.html

Jane: above is a website talking about bonus points for beating better players. I have pasted an excerpt from it:

“3. Quality control: In practice, this means bonus points. Winning a tournament beating Serena, Venus and Clijsters along the way is not the same as winning a tournament beating Pironkova, Radwanska and Kvitova along the way, and the rankings should reflect this.

The current rankings have the first two, but not the third. The ATP got rid of bonus points as part of its sense leave-taking in 2000, and the WTA a few years ago. I’m not sure why, except that they obviously made calculating and anticipating the rankings a lot harder. This is also one of the main things I’d point to when talking about the problems with the system. Wozniacki has beaten very few Top 5 players, and the system doesn’t care at all. Based on what I remember of the men, bonus points for beating a quality opponent could be as much as 20 percent of a player’s total, or even 30 percent in one or two cases.”

February 9th, 2012 at 10:05 am

Wow Polo, that is interesting. I have followed tennis for a number of years, but mainly I watched the slams and didn’t follow rankings etc until about 7 or 8 years ago. Maybe that is why I don’t recall this bonus system. Thanks for sharing.

February 9th, 2012 at 10:12 am

djoker has beaten nadal on all surfaces, but he hasn’t beaten him in best of 5 at RG. that’s a different thing to best of 3 on clay, just ask roger.
and after the oz final, it’s hard to say nadal wouldn’t be favourite in a best of 5 clay right now.
even if nadal would say otherwise.

February 9th, 2012 at 11:06 am

@roy:

This has been the pattern of saying from past one year.

1) @IndianWells — Djoker has never beaten Nadal in a final.

2)@Miami – Djoker will not be able to beat Nadal in real “heat”

3)@Madrid: Djoker has never beaten Nadal on Clay

4) @Rome: Djoker will not be able to beat Nadal after a mini marathon semi against Murray and less than 24 hours to recover.

5) @Wimbledon: Djoker has never beaten Nadal in a Grandslam

6) @USOpen: Djoker will not be able to beat Nadal after epic 5 setter against Federer

7) @AO: Djoker will not be able to beat Nadal after a marathon semi against Murray with less time to recover

By all means AO final should have been done in 4 sets, if not for brave come back by Nadal.

8)@FO:???

Right now, I will never bet against Djoker…trend is your friend..

February 9th, 2012 at 11:47 am

@Polo, jane:

There is such a ranking system, that fulfils all the requirements made by Kamakshi Tandon, and that is in use, and tested, for about 40 years. It is the chess rating system.

I have even found a list with tennis players ranked. It is far more precise than the actual ranking system, and far better.

http://tennisplanet.wordpress.com/2010/06/20/chess-elo-rating-system-adapted-to-men’s-tennis-from-rafafan-thanks/

February 9th, 2012 at 11:49 am

In the list you can find under the links I provided is the best ELO (rating) players achieved in their career, not the average one.

The system, on the other side, does not privilege GS, finals… All matches have the same importance.

February 9th, 2012 at 11:53 am

Andy sounds very positive: good sign.
—
The only thing your Humble Highness is positive of is Mr. Lady Forehand choking when it matters. Everything else is just noise. Ignore it. Go with certainty.

February 9th, 2012 at 11:54 am

You can see the level of domination players achieved in certain periods.

Skeezer: Roger Federer tops the list.

Results from the last two years are not included. I would like to know what does rating give for 2010 and 2011.

February 9th, 2012 at 11:56 am

Finally, I just read that in table tennis, they use a system based on chess ratings.

February 9th, 2012 at 12:05 pm

As an Arroturd once told me, they prefer “Forever rankings” based on 2003-2007 performance. It makes them feel better or something like that.

February 9th, 2012 at 12:24 pm

Apologies in advances for cluelessness, but what does “ELO” stand for (other than Electric Light Orchestra – hey! “Don’t bring me down!”)

February 9th, 2012 at 12:29 pm

The man than invented this system is Arpad Elo. It is an another name for the rating.

I copied this from the wiki:

“Each player has a rating, which is a number. A higher number indicates a better player, based on their results against other rated players. The winner of a contest between two players gains a certain number of points in his rating and the losing player loses the same amount. The number of points won or lost in a contest depends on the difference in the ratings of the players, so a player will gain more points by beating a higher-rated player than by beating a lower-rated player. In chess, for instance, if one player is rated 100 points higher than the other player, he is expected to win about five games out of eight, and the rating changes reflect that. Over a series of games, if a player does better than expected, based on the ratings (his compared to his opponents), his rating will go up.”

February 9th, 2012 at 12:36 pm

lol about janes post,and glad someone else asked that question other than me.

February 9th, 2012 at 12:38 pm

This could be a good link to understand chess ratings:

http://chess.about.com/od/chesscommunities/qt/Ratings.htm

February 9th, 2012 at 12:39 pm

Thanks mat4: yeah that’s an interesting perspective; I’d love to see 2010 and 2011 as you note. Maybe you should get out your calculator? ;)

alison, lol, someone had to ask… I even made a typo “advances” to add to the cluelessness. Sigh. Time to get some coffee and get to work.

February 9th, 2012 at 12:41 pm

@jane:

I would like to, and there are free programs that will calculate the ratings in a few seconds. But to rate accurately, I need a good base with the results of all the matches played in ATP tournaments, challengers and futures. If you can find me a link with a least part of them, I could try and have the results tomorrow.

Then, we should decide to rate only the matches, or the sets. I am rather for the sets. It makes a difference. P.e.: Nole and Andy would have the same performance in their last three matches if we rate the sets, but it would be 2-1 if we rate only the final results.

February 9th, 2012 at 12:48 pm

jane then get your ass off to work,not to rub it in but i have a couple of days off sorry lol,could not resist,err just kidding.

February 9th, 2012 at 1:03 pm

Mat4, what I was referring to was a bonus point system that was actually used in tennis many years ago. That was used to rank tennis players before. You beat somebody ranked higher and you get extra points. Somebody ranked 100 who beats number 1 gets a lot of extra points that can move him up the rank several notches higher than if he beat number 99.

February 9th, 2012 at 1:28 pm

@Mat4: It would be wrong to rate their performance over sets… Because chess rates only victory, as should tennis, and that is all that matters, or if not, calculate games or even points because it would be even more precise? P.S In chess there is a possibility of a draw :)

February 9th, 2012 at 5:52 pm

@vox777:

I played chess a lot, and I thought about rating the sets precisely because there are no draws in tennis.

But I can’t find an adequate base, and to merge the results I have found would take a lot of time. I don’t know how the original poster did it, but I only had the idea to convert the results and use an appropriated chess program to rate the players.

February 9th, 2012 at 6:55 pm

CKR, I do remember people saying those things.

February 9th, 2012 at 10:17 pm

mat4, doesn’t the ATP site have that information? And did you mean for ALL players or were you just interested in a couple?

February 9th, 2012 at 11:46 pm

@jane:

You need the most complete information you can find. I managed to make a little base with last year results, but I didn’t include challengers, futures, qualifications… It won’t be accurate enough, but will do.

It is very important: when you calculate chess ratings, the player is rewarded when he wins against a good player, but penalized when he loses against somebody with a lower ranking, so you have to take in account the results of all the players. You can’t calculate the rating of a couple of players only, you have to do it for all of them (in fact, you can, but it is relative).

It functions this way, grosso modo: the rating average stays always the same, but in function of their results, some players improve their rating when others lose points. Let’s say that the average level of ATP top 100 players is 2400. A player that wins 60% of his matches will rise to 2500, but another one who wins only 40% will fall to 2300. The average rating stays 2400.

Your rating is always calculated against the average rating of your opponents. If you play against the top 10 twenty times in a season, the average rating of you opponents will be… 2600. So when you win 50% of your matches, you will get a rating of 2600.

Chess rating shows the level of a player against a certain field. But when you use a base with all the historical results, you can link together players from different eras. That’s how we got this:

1 Roger,Federer,SUI 2007.7 2890.2
2 John,McEnroe,USA 1985.3 2835.6
3 Ivan,Lendl,USA 1990.1 2814.3
4 Rafael,Nadal,ESP 2009.4 2799.6
5 Bjorn,Borg,SWE 1980.5 2771.4
6 Jimmy,Connors,USA 1980.1 2665.1
7 Novak,Djokovic,SRB 2009.9 2619.4
8 Pete,Sampras,USA 1997.2 2609.6
9 Andy,Murray,GBR 2010.1 2584.2
10 Rod,Laver,AUS 1975.2 2567.8
11 Boris,Becker,GER 1991.1 2558.3
12 Andy,Roddick,USA 2009.6 2540.9
13 Stefan,Edberg,SWE 1991.8 2533.0
14 Andre,Agassi,USA 1995.7 2500.5
15 Lleyton,Hewitt,AUS 2005.2 2499.0
16 Guillermo,Vilas,ARG 1979.0 2498.1
17 Nikolay,Davydenko,RUS 2010.1 2485.8
18 Mats,Wilander,SWE 1988.8 2467.7
19 Michael,Chang,USA 1997.3 2416.9
20 Juan_Martin,Del_Potro,ARG 2009.7 2390.9

(rank, name, date when achieved, rating)

The rating shows the level of field the player played against (do I sound like Master Yoda?). So, if you take in account the rating, Federer’s era was not a weak one, and his level of domination was unprecedented.

February 10th, 2012 at 5:26 am

Mat4: Well, that way of calculating scores would be even more objective… But it would be hard for regular folks who are not so much in statistics to understand point building and ratings… And it would make a mess after tournaments :)… But then, easy way to the title wouldn’t bring as many points as hard way, so that would certainly be more fair. Also Nole and Rafa would have much higher scores because they defeated Federer so many times in last two years, and he has historically the highest number of points… Upsets would be also accounted more…

Wouldn’t current system be even more fair if they were awarded points for defending tournaments?… Because that is very hard to achieve… But that would also make top players almost untouchable…

February 10th, 2012 at 6:08 am

@Vox:

I found a comparison somewhere on the net: tennis rankings are rewards, chess rankings are statistical data. And you can emphasise the results in slams using a different K factor for those tournaments.

February 10th, 2012 at 6:28 am

It is much easier to do the ELO ratings for chess players since the situation is pretty simple. It is almost exclusively a mental game. Physical fitness plays a part but nowhere quite as much as it does in tennis. Chess players can play at a high level from their teenage years right up to their mid-40s. There is a chess board, the pieces and a clock and the main classical format has remained, more or less, the same over the years. Tennis is a bit more complicated. Apart from advances in racket and string technology and changing playing conditions, you have the three and five set formats and a wide variety of surfaces(not to mention different locations, weather conditions, indoor/outdoor etc) which have also changed over the years. There are many more variables involved and that makes it much harder to do to a generalized comparison especially across eras.

February 10th, 2012 at 6:51 am

Sorry for the extra “to” in the last sentence.

February 10th, 2012 at 6:53 am

Mat4,I have some knowledge in mathematics but not in chess ratings and I would like to ask You if You have calculating ratings for 2010 and 2011.

February 10th, 2012 at 6:55 am

@bojana:

Still preparing a base for 2011. I think I could have some rough results tomorrow.

February 10th, 2012 at 7:56 am

@Mat4: Go for it Mat

February 10th, 2012 at 9:27 am

I mean do it ASAP, English is not my first language :)

February 10th, 2012 at 9:27 am

Tennislover – 1+

Elo ratings for tennis players – too skewed by physical variables and changes in format, surfaces, racquet tech in era’s to for serious application in tennis.

February 10th, 2012 at 12:28 pm

I finally managed to build a starting rating list fo 2011 and the beginning of 2012. It is very crude: I didn’t use different K for GS, but I think it is still ok.

February 10th, 2012 at 5:08 pm

@TL, Carlo:

Table tennis uses ratings. It is just a statistical tool, and doesn’t show the absolute level of play of a player but his relative performance against the field he played. If we know his limitations, it is a good system.

February 10th, 2012 at 5:11 pm