****************

1 Federer , R. 6775

2 Nadal , R. 5655

3 Djokovic , N. 4935

****************

Quote:

> ****************

> 1 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Federer , R. ? ? ? ? ? ?6775

> 2 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Nadal , R. ? ? ? ? ? ? ?5655

> 3 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Djokovic , N. ? ? ? ? ? 4935

> ****************

Something sucks with the point system. > 1 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Federer , R. ? ? ? ? ? ?6775

> 2 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Nadal , R. ? ? ? ? ? ? ?5655

> 3 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Djokovic , N. ? ? ? ? ? 4935

> ****************

Why not just give a set number of points regardless of past

performance?

How could Nadal do worse after beating Federer?

On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 22:41:55 -0700 (PDT), Fan

>> ****************

>> 1 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Federer , R. ? ? ? ? ? ?6775

>> 2 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Nadal , R. ? ? ? ? ? ? ?5655

>> 3 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Djokovic , N. ? ? ? ? ? 4935

>> ****************

i think those are last weeks numbers. I think Djock now has

5185. No ?

Quote:

>> ****************

>> 1 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Federer , R. ? ? ? ? ? ?6775

>> 2 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Nadal , R. ? ? ? ? ? ? ?5655

>> 3 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Djokovic , N. ? ? ? ? ? 4935

>> ****************

>Something sucks with the point system.

>Why not just give a set number of points regardless of past

>performance?

>How could Nadal do worse after beating Federer?

5185. No ?

On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 05:50:25 GMT, Dave Hazelwood

>On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 22:41:55 -0700 (PDT), Fan

sorry i stand corrected.

Quote:

>On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 22:41:55 -0700 (PDT), Fan

>>> ****************

>>> 1 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Federer , R. ? ? ? ? ? ?6775

>>> 2 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Nadal , R. ? ? ? ? ? ? ?5655

>>> 3 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Djokovic , N. ? ? ? ? ? 4935

>>> ****************

>>Something sucks with the point system.

>>Why not just give a set number of points regardless of past

>>performance?

>>How could Nadal do worse after beating Federer?

>i think those are last weeks numbers. I think Djock now has

>5185. No ?

here is a good reference.

http://www.stevegtennis.com/

Quote:

> On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 05:50:25 GMT, Dave Hazelwood

I get my information here:

> >On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 22:41:55 -0700 (PDT), Fan

> >>> ****************

> >>> 1 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Federer , R. ? ? ? ? ? ?6775

> >>> 2 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Nadal , R. ? ? ? ? ? ? ?5655

> >>> 3 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Djokovic , N. ? ? ? ? ? 4935

> >>> ****************

> >>Something sucks with the point system.

> >>Why not just give a set number of points regardless of past

> >>performance?

> >>How could Nadal do worse after beating Federer?

> >i think those are last weeks numbers. I think Djock now has

> >5185. No ?

> sorry i stand corrected.

> here is a good reference.

> http://www.stevegtennis.com/

http://www.atptennis.com/1/en/home/

1 Federer , R. 6775

2 Nadal , R. 5655

3 Djokovic , N. 4935

4 Davydenko , N. 3440

5 Ferrer , D. 2610

6 Roddick , A. 2260

7 Nalbandian , D. 2085

8 Blake , J. 1965

9 Gasquet , R. 1805

10 Berdych , T. 1650

I do not agree with is the way point are awarded. It is confusing and

unfair to award points based on past performance.

In article

> I do not agree with is the way point are awarded. It is confusing and

> unfair to award points based on past performance.

What else would you want to base points on if not past performance?

Future performance as projected by groupies or pundits? I find it scary

that so many people find the concept of points accumulated over the last

12 months "confusing", as witnessed by idiots complaining that a player

is "penalized" for not failing to defend" points at a tournament, or

arguing that #1 ranking in December is more valuable than in March or

June.

Quote:

> I do not agree with is the way point are awarded. It is confusing and

> unfair to award points based on past performance.

Future performance as projected by groupies or pundits? I find it scary

that so many people find the concept of points accumulated over the last

12 months "confusing", as witnessed by idiots complaining that a player

is "penalized" for not failing to defend" points at a tournament, or

arguing that #1 ranking in December is more valuable than in March or

June.

jyh.

there is atp race table isnt it.

besides

if they will award points based on the future performance we all know that

murray,nalbandian i gasquet will be far ahead.

besides

if they will award points based on the future performance we all know that

murray,nalbandian i gasquet will be far ahead.

Quote:

> > ****************

> > 1 Federer , R. 6775

> > 2 Nadal , R. 5655

> > 3 Djokovic , N. 4935

> > ****************

> Something sucks with the point system.

> Why not just give a set number of points regardless of past

> performance?

> How could Nadal do worse after beating Federer?

Both players did exactly the same as last year at Monte Carlo, so

there should be no difference at all ...

Quote:

> there is atp race table isnt it.

> besides

> if they will award points based on the future performance we all know that

> murray,nalbandian i gasquet will be far ahead.

Gasquet??!!!!! > besides

> if they will award points based on the future performance we all know that

> murray,nalbandian i gasquet will be far ahead.

As long as he doesn't have to face Sam "I'm a clay-court specialist"

Querry ...

Quote:

> > ****************

> > 1 Federer , R. 6775

> > 2 Nadal , R. 5655

> > 3 Djokovic , N. 4935

> > ****************

> Something sucks with the point system.

> Why not just give a set number of points regardless of past

> performance?

> How could Nadal do worse after beating Federer?

change in the calendar.

So if Nadal wins Barcelona this week (fairly likely) then he will have

5955 before Rome.

Quote:

> ****************

> 1 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Federer , R. ? ? ? ? ? ?6775

> 2 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Nadal , R. ? ? ? ? ? ? ?5655

> 3 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Djokovic , N. ? ? ? ? ? 4935

> ****************

Nadal's 300 points from Barcelona have come off. He'll get them back > 1 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Federer , R. ? ? ? ? ? ?6775

> 2 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Nadal , R. ? ? ? ? ? ? ?5655

> 3 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Djokovic , N. ? ? ? ? ? 4935

> ****************

this week...You could as well add 300 to Nadal's total.

Quote:

> In article

Never stops to amaze me actually..... >> I do not agree with is the way point are awarded. It is confusing and

>> unfair to award points based on past performance.

> What else would you want to base points on if not past performance?

> Future performance as projected by groupies or pundits? I find it scary

> that so many people find the concept of points accumulated over the last

> 12 months "confusing", as witnessed by idiots complaining that a player

> is "penalized" for not failing to defend" points at a tournament,

or

Quote:

> arguing that #1 ranking in December is more valuable than in March or

> June.

Well...that's another thing...,CYGS has more value than NCYGS for the very > June.

same reason...calendar...

Quote:

>> > ****************

>> > 1 Federer , R. 6775

>> > 2 Nadal , R. 5655

>> > 3 Djokovic , N. 4935

>> > ****************

>> Something sucks with the point system.

>> Why not just give a set number of points regardless of past

>> performance?

>> How could Nadal do worse after beating Federer?

> Do worse that what?

> Both players did exactly the same as last year at Monte Carlo, so

> there should be no difference at all ...

already dropped out.

Barcelona was a week earlier last year.

And Djokovic still has his points earned in Estoril last year.

Quote:

> >> > ****************

> >> > 1 Federer , R. 6775

> >> > 2 Nadal , R. 5655

> >> > 3 Djokovic , N. 4935

> >> > ****************

> >> Something sucks with the point system.

> >> Why not just give a set number of points regardless of past

> >> performance?

> >> How could Nadal do worse after beating Federer?

> > Do worse that what?

> > Both players did exactly the same as last year at Monte Carlo, so

> > there should be no difference at all ...

> I think Nadal "did worse" in terms of ranking because his Barcelona points

> already dropped out.

> Barcelona was a week earlier last year.

> And Djokovic still has his points earned in Estoril last year.

Djokovic

Quote:

>> > ****************

>> > 1 Federer , R. 6775

>> > 2 Nadal , R. 5655

>> > 3 Djokovic , N. 4935

>> > ****************

>> Something sucks with the point system.

>> Why not just give a set number of points regardless of past

>> performance?

>> How could Nadal do worse after beating Federer?

> ok, last year's Barcelona points have dropped off this week due to a

> change in the calendar.

> So if Nadal wins Barcelona this week (fairly likely) then he will have

> 5955 before Rome.

Or 5455 before the Rome tournament, assuming he wins Barcelona?

1. I am a huge fan of both Federer and Nadal

2. i am sharapova's plumber, her bf, yes i really am

3. I am watching Superbowl now and why I am doing this?

4. I am done, that's it, I am leaving

5. I am back and I am married now

6. Federer-Nadal-Djokovic stats so far in USO

7. Nadal after Youzhny match: "I am not 100%"

8. Kicking and screaming Nadal declares "I am 100% well to play this tournament, yeah."

9. I am quite amazed with Nadal after winning Madrid

10. I am afraid to say it but slicing against Nadal works

11. Really liking what I am seeing from Nadal here

13. Nadal also a golf champion, by winning a Pro-Am

14. Borg: “I am sure he (Nadal) will be ready for the Golden Swing of tournaments.”