Talk About Tennis 2.0

Number 1 is in play at the Australian Open with Sabalenka, Swiatek, and Gauff all having a chance to leave Australia with the top ranking.

Sabalenka is most likely to retain #1 in the form that she is currently in, although her goalpost moves farther back the more matches that Swiatek wins.

Swiatek is defending the least amount of points and only needs to reach the 3rd round to knock Coco out of contention. That would also mean Sabalenka would need to reach the semifinals to retain her ranking. If Swiatek also reaches the semis, Sabalenka would need to make the final. If they both make the final, whoever wins takes #1.

Gauff's chance is miniscule, but possible. She would need to win the title, have Sabalenka lose before the semifinals, and Swiatek to lose before the 3rd round.

35+ players in the top 100 (oldest to youngest)

WTA: Tatjana Maria (37), Laura Siegemund (36), Victoria Azarenka (35)

ATP: Gael Monfils (38), Fabio Fognini (37), Novak Djokovic (37), Roberto Bautista Agut (36), Kei Nishikori (35)

Joao Fonseca likely (live ranking #98) joins the the top 100 club as its youngest (18) member.

With Tsitsipas, and Dimitrov losing early it looks like there will be no top 10 players with a one-handed backhand again on the ATP side. Musetti has a chance, but would have to make the semis.

The stroke is too difficult to learn at a young age. You just don't have the strength.
You would need to be taught a two handed BH with a western BH grip on the dominant hand, and later on in your development be taught to let go of the non-dominant hand. And that is too complicated.

Madison Keys will move up to 7 in the world rankings on Monday, matching her highest ever way back in October 2016

With Sinners ban, he will lose Rotterdam (500), Miami (1.000), Monte Carlo (400), Madrid (200) in total 2100 Points. He is currently at 11,830, after his ban he will be at 9,730.

Zverev is currently at 8135 and has to defend Miami 400, IW 200, Monte Carlo 100, Madrid 100, Los Cabos 100, Munich 50 in total 950 points. Zverev will need 9,730 - 8135 + 950 = 2,545 Points till Rome to be World number 1.

He will (probably) play: Rio (500), Acapulco (500), IW (1000), Miami (1000), Monte Carlo (1000), Munich (500), Madrid (1000), overall (5500). Not all of these tournaments may count due the limit of tournaments which count for points. The tournaments are not Zverves favourites, nevertheless he will bag some solid points every time.

There is a realistic chance that Zverev will be #1 by the end of Sinners ban. Alcarez has a solid chance as well.

Doha was a real triumph for the ranking system! #41 won the tournament, in the presence of #1-10 practically everybody! Only #6 was absent .

Zverev as #1 sounds very unlikely to me. He just won't collect that many points.

ashkor87 wrote: ↑Sun Feb 16, 2025 7:27 am Doha was a real triumph for the ranking system! #41 won the tournament, in the presence of #1-10 practically everybody! Only #6 was absent .

Yes, because the ranking system looks at the achievements of the players over a long period of time, opposite to what you just did, which was look at a small sample (one tournament), seeing that it fits your narrative and then using it as proof that you are right, and the ranking system is wrong.
What is it, Ashkor? Is it my position that equality rules in the WTA (except Iga on clay), or is it your position that "only top players can beat other top players"?
No, I know. You are going to now say that Anisimova, a player that has won 3 titles in total, is a "Tier 1.2.4+" player.
The ranking system understands that there will be Amanda Anisimova's winning Doha, and that there will be Camila Giorgi's winning Montreal, every now and then. Badosa winning IW. And then it averages their result so we will not go into hyper drive and make Amanda Anisimova the new world #1.

I asked you this question a few years ago. Ok, so you don't like the ranking system. What would you replace it with, for entry and seeding at tournaments? You never answered.
So I ask again.

Suliso wrote: ↑Sun Feb 16, 2025 8:56 am Zverev as #1 sounds very unlikely to me. He just won't collect that many points.

Agree. He would need to clean the table. And of course, he would really not be.
But... if this ban would have been imposed at a previous time, and Jannik had not been able to defend his Aussie and Zverev had won it...
The hypothetical world is so much more interesting always.

I have no issue with using rankings for entry and seeding. Beyond, no. As a measure of how good a player is,no.

ponchi101 wrote: ↑Sun Feb 16, 2025 1:34 pm

Suliso wrote: ↑Sun Feb 16, 2025 8:56 am Zverev as #1 sounds very unlikely to me. He just won't collect that many points.

Agree. He would need to clean the table. And of course, he would really not be.
But... if this ban would have been imposed at a previous time, and Jannik had not been able to defend his Aussie and Zverev had won it...
The hypothetical world is so much more interesting always.

If Zverev thinks about it this way at any point, he's gonna dwell and be pissy, possibly forever.

Owendonovan wrote: ↑Thu Feb 20, 2025 1:49 am

ponchi101 wrote: ↑Sun Feb 16, 2025 1:34 pm

Suliso wrote: ↑Sun Feb 16, 2025 8:56 am Zverev as #1 sounds very unlikely to me. He just won't collect that many points.

Agree. He would need to clean the table. And of course, he would really not be.
But... if this ban would have been imposed at a previous time, and Jannik had not been able to defend his Aussie and Zverev had won it...
The hypothetical world is so much more interesting always.

If Zverev thinks about it this way at any point, he's gonna dwell and be pissy, possibly forever.

I think his claim to fame will be where he is right now: best player NEVER to win a slam, and never to be ranked #1.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/se ... -all-time/

in case you havent seen this - I dont fully agree but it is a good analysis, good data