ATP rankings - can anyone explain ?

ATP rankings - can anyone explain ?

Author
Discussion

nutsytvr

Original Poster:

566 posts

197 months

Monday 24th August 2015
quotequote all
Why has the Fed gone back to #2?
I understand the "rolling total"system, but that doesn't explain todays rankings.

Prior to Cincinatti, the position was
2. Murray 8660
3. Federer 8065

Fed won Cinci last year, so was defending 1000 points. Murray went out in the 1/4's, so was defending 180.

This year Murray goes out in the semi, for 360 points, a net gain of 180 which is exactly reflected in todays rankings - he now has 8840.

On the same basis Fed should remain on 8065 - defending 1000 and winning 1000, a net gain of zero. However the rankings show he has gained 1000.
2. Fed 9065
3. Murray 8840

Now I know Fed gets very favourable treatment, but surely they dont fiddle the rankings for him.

Can anyone explain please?

nutsytvr

Original Poster:

566 posts

197 months

Wednesday 26th August 2015
quotequote all
Thanks for that. Sounds like a reasonable explanation.
Paul

chippy17

3,740 posts

242 months

Tuesday 1st September 2015
quotequote all
Reasonable and indeed true due to the extra week of grass court season, hence why Murray went up to no.2

Fed mat get preferential treatment in terms of scheduling (mostly down to prim time tv) but to give him extra points would just be cheating...

If you want to get a better feel for who is playing best in a yearly period look at the race to London rankings, Murray is a clear no.2, if he keeps it up it will eventually show in the rolling rankings


nutsytvr

Original Poster:

566 posts

197 months

Wednesday 2nd September 2015
quotequote all
Chippy

Thanks for this, but in my mind still doesn't fully explain.

Murray went to #2 because Fed didn't play Montreal, therefore dropping 600 points (lost in the final last year), and Murray won it for 1000, net gain of circa 850.

After Cinci, if this theory is correct, murray should have a gain of 360 as presumably his 180 points from last year would also have gone the week before, but in fact he only had a net gain of 180.

Any ideas?

Paul