Nadal Brings Up Two Year Ranking System AGAIN

http://www.livetennisguide.com/2011/12/19/world-no-2-rafael-nadal-sticks-to-support-two-year-atp-ranking/

I hope you are all having enjoyable holidays and if you are still working then I hope the last few days aren’t too bad. There isn’t much to post about right now but I thought this article was newsworthy. This is about Nadal, so you might ask why am I writing about him on a Federer blog. Well first of all this is not just a Federer blog as I explained before, but I also thought this was a good opportunity to appreciate Roger’s good qualities since him and Nadal is pretty much opposites in every way. I thought these comments from Nadal was a real shame. It reeks of selfishness. And I am not saying that because I’m biased. I truly believe that. This is not the first time something like this have come up, and Nadal has always struck me as a self-centered individual. Before he wanted the courts to be slowed down even more, as if it is not slow enough these days.

I don’t remember the exact incident but I think he wanted there to be more clay court events. If anything, there should be more grass court events. There are three Masters Series events on clay and zero on grass. And not for the first time he has now brought up this two year ranking system nonsense. It is simply not a good system. It is like capitalism where something like 5% of the world owns 90% of the world’s wealth. If there is a two year ranking system then the top players will have it even easier than they already do, while the young players who are trying to make it onto the tour will have an even harder time climbing the rankings. It is very difficult to make it in tennis, as I myself found out. It is incredibly competitive at the top and you need a lot of things to go your way to be able to make it. Someone like Nadal pretty much had it all go his way since the start.

He was born and bread to make it. Even if he didn’t do as well as he did he would still have made a great living out of tennis. Of course basically the same can be said for Roger, but he is not the one who wants a two year ranking system. He opposes it. Roger clearly has more compassion for those young players who have to make immense sacrifices to make it to the top. I mean is hard enough as it is. Why make it even harder? It just seems to me that Nadal couldn’t care less about others or the sport itself. He wants everything to suit his agenda. It is also funny that he has been bringing up so often of late now that his future seems more uncertain than usual. He has been completely owned by Djokovic and as a result his motivation has suffered. He is now at an age where he should begin to decline, especially given his taxing game style.

So of course a two year ranking system would be much more advantages to him now. It would allow him to remain at the top for longer while he starts to decline, and there would be less competition from young players. Can someone get anymore selfish than this guy? Clearly he doesn’t respect the traditions of the sport either. As far as he is concerned tennis can die after he is gone. It is all about his personal glory and ego needs. How can it be good for tennis if young players must struggle so much to break through? It would be a disaster. I am not a fan of capitalism and neither am I a fan of a two year ranking system. It stinks of selfishness and exploitation. Thank God Roger is president of the player’s council and not this egocentric maniac. This is where you can see why I never warmed to Nadal. It’s all about selfishness and ego.

I never could and never will be able to stand that attitude. It is what destroys our world. It is called inequality. This is essentially what Nadal stands for. Competition is OK. This is after all a sport. But exploitation is another thing. You can go through life stepping on others to get to the top and win at all costs, but what an empty, miserable life that is. I have news for Nadal and all the other capitalistic pigs out there: It feels good to help and care about others. Always winning and only caring about yourself has a shallow emptiness about it. Roger on the other hand deeply loves the sport, cares about it’s past and future, and cares about future generations. That is why he will not support this system. It comes back to love and fear, which is the essence of Roger and Nadal. Roger is motivated by love. Nadal is motivated by fear. It is that simple.

Photobucket


Posted in Uncategorized.

36 Comments

  1. I’ve said this for a long time – Nadal doesn’t love tennis as much as he loves to win. He is very self-centred and will do whatever it takes to win. Thankfully the majority of people are against the two-year ranking system and can see Roger’s logical views on the matter. Tennis is like any other sport – new stars need to be made. In tennis right now, young guys have great chances to make it to the top, but a two-year system would halt that. I look at golf and their ranking system and I would HATE for that to be implemented into tennis.

    Nadal is very selfish and really doesn’t care about anyone other than himself. Wanting a shorter season, two-year ranking syste, MORE clay court events (it’s already the most longest part of the season and more unenjoyable), and wanting slower courts, all very ego-driven requests. Not to mention he said that Sampras and Ivanisevic did not play “real tennis” which is a slap in the face to ALL tennis players because numerous top guys in the past playing an attacking game.

    Shame on you Nadal.

    [Reply]

    Veronica Lee Reply:

    I’m sorry if I’m naive and totally unworthy to be called a tennis fan, but I don’t quite understand about 2 year ranking system. I read about this quite a few times but the reports never bother to explain what it actually means. Can someone please explain to me how it works? I’ve noted that Fed and Nadal are lately beginning to have very different views on some major issues. Besides what you have mentioned, they have different ideas who they support for ATP President. Also Nadal was quite aggressive supporting Murray’s talk about potential strikes while Fed said that strikes are completely out of line and unnecessary. I don’t know if all these differences would start to put a bit of strain into the very good relationship they have with each other. Thank God they at least agreed on one thing ….. blue clay!!

    [Reply]

    vaibhav Reply:

    hey vernonica, m not sure abt wt the 2 yr ranking system actually is, but it’slain idiotic…i guess it’s calculatin points n droppin them after 2 years…so technically i think nadal wants 1 tennis season to be equal to 2 years…tht is 2011-2013 is one season where u only gain points for every tournament droppin none…n 2013-2015 will b the season tht they recalculate points by droppin the ones from the 2011-2013 season….it’s actually absurd…nadal wants everythin to go his way, if this had happ, he wud def b number for a longer time as he wudn drop points from his 2010 season…how cheap can one actually get to have everythin his way? ruan,totally agree to this post, thnk God tht federer’s logical opinion has more weight…nadal is the only GS champion who is uncomfortable wid everythin in schedulin, now 2012 season has 2 weeks more for the off-season….this clearly shows tht nadal is jst plain desperate n his team n himself just desperately tryin for the CYGS and for being the GOAT, which he never will…nadal is fakin his humility, he is a child who wants to immortalize his name in the tennis books till the world ends…i cant wait to c him kicked out by someone b4 the semis in the aussie open next yr.

    [Reply]

    vaibhav Reply:

    plai idiotic*** number 1***

    [Reply]

    Veronica Lee Reply:

    That is ABSOLUTELY ridiculous and stupid. Thanks for explaining, Vaibhav. I can’t see it happening in tennis. Yeah, Pratik, it has been a whole year of whining by the humble bull. I don’t get it. It is so cheap and undignified and self-centred for Nadal to fight everything in the present system that does not benefit his own personal gain. I can’t reconcile the person he presents himself to be and what he is complaining about. Which just makes Fed stand out more of how truly worthy a champion he is and why he has won the sportsmanship award multiple times. I’ve never heard Fed complain about anything tennis at all no matter how much the system do not favour him. Truly, form is temporary but class is permanent. And no one shows, acts or IS more class than Roger Federer. Period. It makes it even harder to understand why people still argue who is the real GOAT and why they haven’t already anointed Fed.

    [Reply]

    Pratik Reply:

    You aren’t exactly correct.
    Even in a two year ranking system the season would still be just 1 year.
    In the current system the points a player has earned is the sum of the “Best 18” tournaments of the past 52 weeks.
    In a two year system it would be the “Best 18” of the last 52 weeks, and the “Best 18” of the 52 weeks before that.
    So, at any given time your ranking points are determined by performance over the last two years(to the week), instead of one year as it is currently

    [Reply]

    vaibhav Reply:

    hey thx for clarifyin my doubt :-) , i wasn so sure myself…so nadal is tryna act super smart, he anyways manages so get an avg of 4000 points on clay every season so if calculated over 2 years, he wud have 8000 points locked on him always…but as veronica said, i dun c it happenin either…looks like nadal’s support is only murray, who is good for nothin anyway….n the thing i dun understand is, y is nadal speakin for del potro? dat guy seems classy n although he was the one injured, he never complained i guess…it’s jst dat nadal doesn wanna face tuff opposition in early rounds…it all started when del potro was drawn in his half for the third round match at Wimby where nadal shud have lost to him….nadal is wicked smart, n he is usin his ‘good-guy-humble-guy’ image as a smokescreen wid oder plans in mind.

    [Reply]

    booya719 Reply:

    When I said that Nadal cares for winning more than he loves the game of tennis I was ridiculed quite a bit. Good to know someone else shares a similar opinion. It’s clearly evident that Nadal cares for winning at all costs – he wants a shorter season, more clay tournaments, and a 2-year ranking in which no one can catch up to him in points. Everything Nadal wants favors him winning and staying on top.

    Nadal would still be ranked number 1 right now with his proposed 2-year points system, because his points from his three 2010 grand slams would still be in effect. Why on earth should Nadal still be ranked number 1 for what he won back in 2010? It’s 1 week away from being 2012 already! In tennis a 2-year system really makes no sense. That would be ridiculous as Djokovic has beaten Nadal 6 straight times in 2011. Djokovic is the true number 1 until he loses what he’s won and the system we have now reflects it properly. Nadal was rightfully number 1 until he had lost most of what he won in 2010 and is rightfully ranked number 2 now. Nadal only won 3 tournaments this year for goodness sake and all on clay. His 2-year ranking system is really ridiculous. Holding onto your points for 1 year is already long enough and accurately reflects the way people are playing. With a 2-year system, a player would have to win 6 straight slams first before he could become world number 1 which is simply absurd.

    [Reply]

    Ru-an Reply:

    Well said Booya. A 2-year ranking system would be absurd. It is obvious that Nadal cares more about winning than the sport itself. People who ridicule you are uninformed.

    [Reply]

    WIlfried Reply:

    Booya, I’m not one of those who make fun of or ridiculize other people. I respect your opinion and I agree with most of it. There is only one thing in your comment with which I don’t agree with, and that’s where you say “a player would have to win 6 straight slams first before he could become world number 1” in the two year ranking system. This is not entirely correct in my opinion. In the one year ranking system winning 2 slams over a period of one year will do it to become number one in the ranking, as in the two year ranking system , winning 4 slams over a period of 2 years will do it as well. They don’t need to be won straight one after the other. Besides I’m not a partisan of the two year ranking system either

    [Reply]

  2. Nadal has done nothing but complain this entire season. Shorter season, more clay court events, 2 year ranking system, davis cup scheduling issues(after USO, which is his fault to begin with), USO scheduling(the only justifiable complaint).
    Since he has got his way with the USO scheduling and and the shorter season, he probably believes that he will get his way in the other issues too. I do not see his complaining stopping any time soon.

    [Reply]

  3. Another point against the 2 year ranking system, which does not come up much, is that the YEC would lose part of its charm. It is meant to be the best 8 players of the year battling it out. Best 8 players of the last two years just does not seem right.

    [Reply]

    Veronica Lee Reply:

    Yeah, Pratik, it does not seem right. The more you think about it, the more it just ain’t right. Just plain stupid and don’t make any sense. Don’t see 2 year ranking happening.

    [Reply]

  4. I’ve been so tired of the Spaniard’s antics for so long that his latest farce regarding a new ranking system simply confirms all my negative impressions of him. What else will he demand? That Wimbledon be turned to clay? That umpires should be stripped of their powers to reprimand blatant coaching from a player’s box? That the length of time between serves be extended to a minute, perhaps two? That medical timeouts be granted for finger-taping? That the tennis season be ended right after the US Open? That the Year End Championships be abolished, along with all indoor hardcourt tournaments? God, please save us from having to endure much more of the plodding, cumbersome, unsportsmanlike tennis of Rafael Nadal.

    [Reply]

  5. sorry, off topic again
    guys do ou follow PA facebook page? he posts RF stuff al the time and has some great pics and fantastic angles and anecdotes
    check it out

    [Reply]

  6. I read a piece about Gaston Gaudio and what he talked about Federer and Nadal. Gaudio said that after defeating Nadal in Buenos Aires in 2005, 0-6,6-0,6-1, Nadal went nuts in the locker room breaking all his rackets. Gaudio said ” what’s wrong with this kid ,is he crazy”. The reason I bring this up is, is because Nadal wants to win at any costs. He doesn’t care about the game or have any respect for players. Gaudio had nothing but nice things to say about Federer( again Federer is all class). Nadal’s thirst for winning is overconsuming and it shows the way he plays and how he reacts to losing points or matches for that matter. Of course he wants more clay matches, two year points standing, slower courts. Nadal doesn’t give a rats poop about game or the younger generation after him. Selfish bastard! I hope Djokovic faces him in Australia and whoops him bad.

    [Reply]

    marron Reply:

    Gaston Gaudio:

    Quote:
    Nadal is the person who surprises me every day. I do not know about you, but I used to think: No, Nadal is not better than Federer. But he beat him, in Australia. Nadal is not better than Federer. But he beat him on grass. He is not better than Federer, but then he beats him again. Then he is number one. And it continues on and on. He continues to amaze me, every day more. It cannot be understood. He has a mind of a super-endowed person. Mentally, he is unique. There is no one out there with the attitude of that boy. His is a unique mentality which cannot be explained. A guy with so much courage, such clutch, such a winning mentality, that one can only tip his hat and say: you should be number one, you deserve it, you are the greatest I have seen.
    (March 2009 – Tenis 2009, ESPN Latin America – Nadal Superstar)

    [Reply]

    Ru-an Reply:

    Didn’t you post this already? For every 1 guy that says Nadal is the greatest there is 10 who says Federer is. Who cares what Gaudio thinks?

    [Reply]

    marron Reply:

    Exactly! Who cares what Gaudio thinks. Or says. He said a bunch of stuff, didn’t he.

    [Reply]

    Ru-an Reply:

    Yeah, nothing that mattered.

    [Reply]

    Dave Reply:

    Marron, Again you come to Nadull’s defense. Why? Why do you rummage on this blog looking for possible arguments. I was, clearly, making a distinction between two players off of another player’s RECENT quote. I really don’t care what anyone thinks of Nadal.

    [Reply]

    Ru-an Reply:

    Lol Nadull.

    [Reply]

  7. i am a little bit shocked of the self-righteous response to Nadals comments.
    yes, 2-year ranknig system sucks. yes, nadals views may as well be very self-serving. yes, his antics on and off court are repolsive.
    but Nadal is not the devil just like Fed is not an angel. both are human with downsides and upsides.
    Nadal can be a real noble after losing a match, real humble, which i cant say about Fed. Fed is very respectful to players on court as he never wastes any time between points, which we cant say about rafa.
    to present either one of them a sinner or a saint will be huge injustice to the fact that both are complete human beings rather than one-dimensional caricatures.

    [Reply]

    Ru-an Reply:

    Nadal is very far from a complete human being. He is just a child who looks out for himself. He still has the primitive old mindset of survival of the fittest. Nadal is the self-righteous one, not my post of my reader’s comments. Nadal is not humble after losing matches. See the video for proof http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NkfIuA46V0Q.
    Roger is not an angel either but he is harmless. His arrogance hurts no one.

    [Reply]

    FeddyBear Reply:

    Ruan,
    dont you think that Rafa’s arm over Fed as he is crying at the trophy presentation ceremony at AO09 is an act of pure humanity, compassion and friendship?
    again – not to portray nadal as some kind of saint, he is just a human being with all the flaws that come with it.

    [Reply]

    Ru-an Reply:

    Yes that was a nice gesture from Nadal. I never said he was pure evil. But one act of kindness doesn’t redeem all his other sins for me.

    [Reply]

  8. Ruan, I ‘ve waited a bit with reacting to your post because I was quite surprised with its wording and its fierce tone, whilst I rather prefer an approach based on rational arguments than a heated emotional discussion.
    Nadal’s main pro-argument for the change seems to be that the one year ranking system would – so to say – make it more difficult to return to the top after a long absence than a two year ranking system . His favoured example hereby seems to be the fall of Juan Martin Del Potro in the rankings after his wrist injury, and his difficult return/ climb up to the top. But advancing “Del Potro’s difficult return to the top” as an argument for the change of a one year ranking system to a two year ranking system, sounds a bit hypocritical to say the least, when Nadal is advancing it, because as far as I’m concerned Nadal doesn’t give a … about Del Potro’s return to the top, on the contrary. Indeed, who else was preventing Del Potro from returning again to the top this year than Nadal himself? Who exactly was using all means, and I’m saying “all means” (including “mean means”) in the third round of Wimbledon to stop Del Potro from bashing him off the court? No one else than Rafael Nadal himself. That’s why this argument advanced by Nadal loses its entire credibility.
    But you, Ruan, and Roger ?, seem to base your opposition against a possible change of the rankingsystem on the same type of argument, namely, the climb in the rankings as well, but in this case not applied to an injuried player (as Del Potro was) but to the younger upcoming players for whom it assumedly becomes more difficult to climb up the ranking.
    My view is that you have to be open to all type of reasonable arguments, pro as well as contra, but that you don’t have to change things for just changing them.
    I shall bring up here some other possible aspects that could be considerd in the reflection about the differerent type of ranking systems:
    1° the more observations (= results in tennis) one takes into account in an evaluation- or calculationsystem, the more reliable your evaluation will be (read: the more correct your rankingsystem will reflect the value or characteristics of the players). It’s the same as taking a smaller or a bigger aselect sample in statistics. The bigger you make your aselect sample, the more it will reflect correctly the characteristics of the population. In concreto, a two year ranking system is theoretically speaking more reliable for the evaluation of a player than a one year ranking system, if and only if the results of both years are given a same weight of course, and are not weighted in favor of the most recent 12 months as apparently is the case in golf.
    2° a ranking system that takes more observations into account, favors the more steady player, as he has more results that possibly can be taken into account; In fact, the two year ranking system clearly would have favored Rogers slamresults as Nadal would only have become number in 2011 and not yet in 2010.
    3° changing your evaluation system from one period to another period, makes a comparison between data of these periods more difficult, read less valid, as you can’t compare apples with oranges
    4° climbing up in the two year ranking system takes a bit longer and is more gradually, butthe ranking evolves also with less shocks, with a lower variance.

    In short, I think we may not overreact to Nadal’s statements, even if they sound very suspect when you hear the arguments he’s advancing.

    Anyway, I like your comments on capitalism and its shortcomings a lot. Capitalism is not creating wealth and sunshine, but also a lot of misery… . It needs to be corrected profoundly , but that’s another story.

    [Reply]

    booya719 Reply:

    Capitalism is a whole other debate and a completely different issue. Capitalism is not a source of evil and in my opinion is unrelated to tennis. Humans who abuse any given system are the source of evil. Any system is only as good as the hearts of men who run it.

    In this case, Nadal wants a system which favors himself. Using Del Potro’s case does not carry any weight for Nadal’s argument.

    Delpo, I love him, he’s my second favorite player after Roger. However, he was out of tennis for a whole year. Why should he have still been ranked for what he did in 2009? Injuries are part of your ability. You’re only as good as your health and what your body can do. Maintaining your health should be part of the game.

    When Del Potro came back, his form was less, his game was not where it needed to be for a number 4 ranking. His ranking of 500 or whatever it was, was proper. Now he’s ranked in the top 20 a year later which is where he currently should be. His ranking will come back through hard work. It should not be handed back to him to him upon his return. His form was not as good as it was in 2009 and he is not a number 4 player in the world at the moment. Del Potro will get his ranking back when he earns it and recovers his form of old.

    [Reply]

    Ru-an Reply:

    You are of course right Wilfried. I feel bad about the fierce wording. I don’t know what got into me. Maybe I was in a bad mood or something. Rational arguments are always better. But I think you should see Booya’s response to Kyle. A two year ranking system really is a terrible idea for the reasons he mentioned. If a player gets injured like Delpo he would take ages to get back to the top as well. It is just not fair and makes no sense no matter how you look at it.

    [Reply]

  9. Hi all! Just wanted to say hello!Haven´t been on in a while.Merry Christmas Ru-an and everyone or whatever you will celebrate.
    And then what we are all hoping to celebrate Roger winning at Abu Dhabi!!!

    [Reply]

    Ru-an Reply:

    You’ve been missed! Merry Christmas Ines! :D

    [Reply]

  10. Before I made my comment last night, I tried first to understand the full impact of a two year rankingssytem on the rankingpoints. To be able to compare both ranking systems, I put the slam real results of both Federer and Nadal in an excelsheet and started calculating the respective rankingpoints in both systems, progressing from one slam to the next one during the period 2001-2011, thereby awarding 2000 points for winning a slam, 1200 points for reaching the final, 720 points for reaching the semifinals, 360 points for reaching the quarters, 180 points for the eight finals, 90 points for the third round, 45 points for the second round and finally 10points for the first round). In the one year ranking point system, I calculated the points by adding the last four slam results (For instance, Roger’s ranking points after the first slam in 2003 are 560 points, being the sum of the points earned in the second, third, fourth slam of 2002 and the first slam in 2003: 10 + 10 + 180 + 360 = 560 points). In the two year ranking points system, I took the last 8 slam results, and divided the sum by 2 (For instance, Roger’s ranking points after the first slam in 2003 is 820 points because we take into account all the results starting from the second slam in 2001 to the first slam in 2003: (360+360+180+180+10+10+180+360)/2= 820 points) . You can find the result of this simulation in the table here:

    SLAM RESULTS rankingpoints calculated on results of 1 year rankingpoints calculated on results of 2 years

    year Roger Rafael Roger Rafael Roger Rafael
    2001 90 0 90 45
    360 0 450 225
    360 0 810 405
    180 0 990 495
    2002 180 0 1080 585
    10 0 730 590
    10 0 380 595
    180 0 380 0 685
    2003 360 0 560 0 820
    10 0 560 0 645
    2000 90 2550 90 1465
    360 45 2730 135 1555 67,5
    2004 2000 90 4370 225 2465 112,5
    90 0 4450 225 2505 112,5
    2000 0 4450 135 3500 112,5
    2000 45 6090 135 4410 135
    2005 720 180 4810 225 4590 225
    720 2000 5440 2225 4945 1225
    2000 45 5440 2270 4945 1202,5
    2000 90 5440 2315 5765 1225
    2006 2000 0 6720 2135 5765 1180
    1200 2000 7200 2135 6320 2180
    2000 1200 7200 3290 6320 2780
    2000 360 7200 3560 6320 2937,5
    2007 2000 360 7200 3920 6960 3027,5
    1200 2000 7200 3920 7200 3027,5
    2000 1200 7200 3920 7200 3605
    2000 180 7200 3740 7200 3650
    2008 720 720 5920 4100 6560 4010
    1200 2000 5920 4100 6560 4010
    1200 2000 5120 4900 6160 4410
    2000 720 5120 5440 6160 4590
    2009 1200 2000 5600 6720 5760 5410
    2000 180 6400 4900 6160 4500
    2000 0 7200 2900 6160 3900
    1200 720 6400 2900 5760 4170
    2010 2000 360 7200 1260 6400 3990
    360 2000 5560 3080 5980 3990
    360 2000 3920 5080 5560 3990
    720 2000 3440 6360 4920 4630
    2011 720 360 2160 6360 4680 3810
    1200 2000 3000 6360 4280 4720
    360 1200 3000 5560 3460 5320
    720 1200 3000 4760 3220 5560

    The simulation shows indeed that declining slam results are impacting your rankingpoints at a much earlier moment in the one year ranking system than in the two year ranking system, as shown by the results in the last two columns of the table. Indeed, in the two year ranking system Nadal doesn’t dethrone Federer before the second slam of 2011, where in the one year ranking system, he already dethrones Federer a first time after the last slam in 2008 and a second time after the third slam in 2010. The two year rankingsystem is indeed protecting a bit the better player, as Ruan has criticized in his post.
    I wish everyone a merry christmas and peace in the heart. It’s no moments to attack but to shake hands.

    [Reply]

  11. Ru-an said: ‘I don’t remember the exact incident but I think he wanted there to be more clay court events. If anything, there should be more grass court events.’

    Personally I think Nadal would rather enjoy MORE grass court events. Me too.

    [Reply]

    Ru-an Reply:

    Nadal asked for more clay courts and the courts to be slowed down more.

    [Reply]

    marron Reply:

    Yes. He did. I remember that. Nevertheless, *I* think he would enjoy more grass too.

    [Reply]

  12. Ruan,
    you said you didn’t remember the exact incident but.. he (Nadal) wanted there to be more clay court events”.
    I was reading on your blog and found some of your earlier posts in which you talked about Nadal’s critisizing the ranking system way back in 2009. Even Djokovic and Murray were apparently complaining about it…
    * Nadal the opportunist. (post dated 2d March 2009)
    * Nadal the opportunist is back (post dated 14th May 2009).

    [Reply]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *