View Single Post
Old 03-03-2013, 08:31 PM   #33
Bryan Swartz
Hall Of Fame
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,594

Originally Posted by uncooling
tons of players actually.




Tell me which part you don't agree with
Pretty much all if it .

Based on his potential? How do you rank players on an unquantifiable basis like potential? Everybody has an opinion there, but IMO it's unquestionably better to rank players on achievement(if a player can achieve more, they should, and if they don't, it's their fault and we shouldn't up their ranking because they should have, but didn't, do something).

Courts are slower than they were 15 years ago, yes. It's the same for everybody, and everyone has to compete under the new environment. We don't rank players based on how they would have done in 1990(or whatever date you liked better). We need to rank them on what they achieve today.

That covers Madrid, as for Toronto -- almost all the top players? 7 of the Top 10 played. By what logic, precisely, does 'almost all' mean 30%? That includes Gasquet by the way, who made the final -- which means he was that much worse that Tipsarevic the rest of the year to still be ranked below him.

Having said that, let's look at the players you mentioned:

Tipsarevic: Slams(1 QF, 2 R16, 1 other); Masters(2 SF, 2 QF, 1 R16, 3 others); 500(2 QF); 250(2 W, F)

Wawrinka: Slams(3 R16, 1 other); Masters(1 SF, 1 QF, 4 R16, 3 others); 500(1 QF); 250(1 F, 1 SF, 1 QF)

Slightly worse at best in every single category. Just no. If he doesn't skip a couple of masters and plays another 500 or two, he'd have a chance, but Tipsarevic got deeper into Masters/Slams consistently.

Raonic: Slams(2 R16, 2 others); Masters(2 QF, 1 R16, 5 others); 500(1 F, 1 SF); 250(1 W, 2 QF)

Too inconsistent at the Slams and Masters. Same song, different verse.

Gasquet: Slams(4 R16); Masters(1 F, 1 QF, 2 R16, 4 others); 500(1 SF); 250(3 W, 1 F)

He's got the best argument, as he's the one guy actually in the ballpark(which is why he is less than 9% behind in points, just 245 pts). The big difference is he exited early at too many Masters. One could possibly make an argument for him being ranked higher, but it's very thin as when you can't make the round of 16 in half the masters you enter(and never progress past that mark once in a Slam either), saying you should be higher than #10 in the world is a pretty big stretch.

Nishikori: Slams(1 R16, 3 others); Masters(3 R16, 5 others); 500(2 W, 2 QF); 250(2 SF)

Been a Kei fan for years, love watching him play. This is irrelevant. He missed a Slam and didn't get past the third round of two others. He also missed a pair of Masters and didn't get far in most of the ones he entered. Sensing a pattern here? Inconsistency and injury. Done very solidly in the 500/250s, but needs to step it up in the big events on a regular basis. Hasn't done it yet.

Almagro: Slams(2 QF, 1 R16, 1 other); Masters(1 QF, 4 R16, 3 others); 500(2 SF, 1 QF); 250(1 W, 1 F).

Interesting case here. Slightly better in Slams, considerably worse in Masters. Less than 600 points behind, which he could get if he would be more consistent.

Not going to go through all of them in the sake of brevity(they're similar) except to LOL @ Gulbis. Rotterdam and Delray Beach(both in the last month -- good on him--) are the only events in the past year that he can claim to have won consecutive matches in other than Challengers. A guy who has to qualify for a 250 event should be ranked in the Top 10? Uh, wut??

So yeah, I respectfully disagree with pretty much everything you said.
Bryan Swartz is offline   Reply With Quote