[Fthenorm]

This system appears flawed. Fed wins the French (I realize he will fail to defend pts from a FO win), Wimbledon, Finals of US open, and the Aussie Open. He may not make much noise in TMS tournaments, but shouldn't he still be #1? Other than the recent claycourt season, it appears as if Fed's accomplishments in the past year outweigh Nadal's past year. Was Nadal given any protected points for being unable to defend Wimbledon in 2009? The points system and relative weights do not seem to accurately measure a player's rank. Also, can anyone describe the protected rankings process? How Delpo sits among the top 10 despite not having defended many of his hardcourt and claycourt 2009 points? How long are his points protected and are they assumed to be at defended values?

Any input during an interesting French Open would be appreciated.

[Goat Milk]

Nadal will only move to number 1 if he wins the French Open, otherwise, Fed will stay at 1.

Ranking also depends on those small tourneys. Like the clay tourneys prior to the French, you get a certain amount of points for advancing/winning each one, and Fed only competed in 1 of those clay tourney's I believe where as Nadal competeted in the majority of them

[noober]

Points are not protected in the rankings. Del Potro is top 10 based on his good performance in the end of last year.

[Goat Milk]

Noober, rankings can be just flawed at times.

It really matters on how many matches you play/win and how many tourneys you play and win. It is based on a point system though. More points are awarded for advancing deep into Majors. Winning something like the Olympics is huge too.

[noober]

Noober, rankings can be just flawed at times.

It really matters on how many matches you play/win and how many tourneys you play and win. It is based on a point system though. More points are awarded for advancing deep into Majors. Winning something like the Olympics is huge too.

Agree. Troicki was close to top 20 2 years ago just because he got lucky in the slams and made it to 2nd and 3rd round. Back then, he didn't deserve it.

[EaglesPhan36]

Rankings don't mean squat. I think they are meant to dupe public bettors who don't research tennis and bet based on seeing a higher ranked player involved in a match-up against another. I've seen many a person think that one player should win a match simply because they are ranked higher with no regard to surface, current form or head-2-head match-ups against that opponent.