Talk:2010 ATP World Tour Finals

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wrong singles ranking used[edit]

The rankings shown on this wiki include points earned in 2009, which don't help toward qualifying for the 2010 championship. The proper point count would be the rankings shown minus any points earned in 2009.

The rankings for this article are correct KnowIG (talk) 23:12, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not in terms of qualifying for the 2010 World Tour Finals. 2009 points are not counted for that. --ToneDaBass (talk) 04:08, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Source it stop talking rubbish. KnowIG (talk) 16:32, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's simple, really. Quoting the ATP World Tour Finals webpage, "Only the world’s Top 8 players at the end of the season qualify for the showpiece event in London". Now think, what tournaments will be counted at that point? Only tournament points played in 2010. None from 2009. So for keeping track of qualifying for the finals, it make sense only to track points earned during the 2010 season. The normal ranking which you're using include points from 2009. That's why in your rankings Del Potro is still high, he still has lots of points from the 2009 US Open Series and US Open. As the season progresses, the ATP Rankings and the ATP Race Rankings will converge. --ToneDaBass (talk) 19:18, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So your POVing well done. The ATP do NOT use the race they use rankings, which is reasoned here under why isn't the race being used. [1] I repeat race is not used don't change it, and don't read things and assume, that's POV which is not allowed. KnowIG (talk) 20:21, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I will add that only the ATP is viable source as it is there competition. KnowIG (talk) 20:22, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting from the ATP Rankings FAQ page which you posted a bad link to (here's a good link):

"The year-to-date rankings is an indicator of what the South African Airways ATP Rankings will be on 15 November, the Monday after the end of the regular season. Players finishing within the Top 8 of the South African Airways ATP Rankings on 15 November after the ATP Masters 1000 tournament in Paris will qualify for the Barclays ATP World Tour Finals, beginning 21 November. The year-to-date rankings include points earned in 2010 plus points earned at the 2009 Davis Cup final and late-season 2009 Challengers played after the 2009 Barclays ATP World Tour Finals."

As you can see, only points earned in 2010 + 2009 Davis Cup Final + late Challengers will count toward reaching the final. Thus in terms of tracking qualification for the 2010 ATP World Tour Finals, one must only look at those points. The list that you stubbornly keep on posting including points earned in 2009 from the US Open Series, the US Open, and other late 2009 tournaments which have absolutely no bearing on who reaches this year's finals. It doesn't get more cut and dry than that quote directly from the ATP source. --ToneDaBass (talk) 00:56, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How m any more times the atp have said NO MORE RACE on the same article. And now your getting petty. KnowIG (talk) 16:44, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the race should be used, because it is the race points that go towards this Championship. When the last week of ATP schedule comes along, the race will be the same as the ranking, but until then, the fact that Del Potro won the US Open last year does not put him in a position to be "7th" this year in qualification for this tournament. Just look at how they've done it on the women's page, they have the points-to-date, with none of last years points counting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.70.1.3 (talk) 02:13, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I WOULD LIKE TO DIRECT YOU TO THE ATP WORLD TOUR FINALS WEBPAGE. Sorry for the caps, but I needed to get your attention. Now if you go to http://www.barclaysatpworldtourfinals.com/Players/Player-Landing.aspx this webpage will show you the contenders, and their points to date, which like ToneDaBass said, are the points which are used for this tournament. According to the standings Del Potro is 7th in the world. That being said he is nowhere near 7th in terms of qualifying for this tournament. Please stop replacing the race points with the current standings, there is another page for current standings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.70.1.3 (talk) 02:19, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reference for Ranking System[edit]

According to the ATP official website, the rankings to date for the ATP World Tour Finals are as such. http://www.barclaysatpworldtourfinals.com/Players/Player-Landing.aspx

I understand the argument you're making for saying that the rankings are what matters, but it is the year-end rankings, which will be the same as the race points... at the end of the year. Now me and others have been putting a lot of work into this page, only for you to go and click undo, and I would appreciate it if you stopped.

The rankings used for this tournament ARE THE RACE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.70.1.3 (talk) 02:34, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

However there is a contridctory statement that says the race is not used. However I do agree that the table seems to be the race, but it has no explaination so one can't tell what it is. Best thing to do is to leave it and have a look at what they are using later, as from my brief overview of it, no one is going to qualify untill after the USO. When we can then say that Fed, Novak, Murray Q'd or Fed, Sod etc Q'd in those orders to determind what is going on with the ATP. KnowIG (talk) 13:40, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Qualifying condition box[edit]

I removed this column from the qualification table: it was unsourced, vague and speculative. In principle I don't think having the column is a bad idea, but it needs to include numbers or at least be more precise - phrases such as 'needs a strong performance' don't have a place in an encyclopaedia. If it's to be reintroduced, I'd put in the minimum number of points required, alongside the result therefore needed, to still be in the running at the end of this week's tournament.

Also, is there a source that Berdych will qualify if he wins Basel? By my reckoning, he'd have 4165 points, plus 10 guaranteed in Paris so 4175. We can still have a situation with: Ferrer on 4185 (500 in Valencia, 360 in Paris); Roddick on 4205 (300 in Basel, 600 in Paris) and Verdsaco on 4450 (300 in Valencia, 1000 in Paris). If that happened and Berdych lost his first match in Paris, he'd not qualify. Granted it's unlikely, but it's possible, unless I've got me maths wrong? --Pretty Green (talk) 09:43, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wooow. I would need math lesson myself as well. Can I take some from you? BTW you're surely right. And I would also add that menstennisforum is a site with lot of noteworthy infos but it's still a forum, isn't it? And as so it shouldn't be used to conclude doubles team entries in Paris next week. Lajbi Holla @ me • CP 10:56, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't say good at math, just too much time on my hands! In the final week the math will be much more straight forward and such a column might make more sense. I also agree that forums should not generally be used as sources --Pretty Green (talk) 13:32, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe colored lines marking "advance-must"s can do the job. I mean Čermák/Mertiňák - Melo/Soarez battle could mean the end for the latter if defeated (and everyone under that line, which could be physically drawn on the table).Lajbi Holla @ me • CP 15:26, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's nice, I like it. Pretty Green (talk) 17:24, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm planning a day-by-day update of it since Verdasco's advancement pushes the border further (mandatory rounds to pass).Lajbi Holla @ me • CP 17:53, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

<reduce indent> Based on current draw and potential points, I've put in the minimum requirements now needed to qualify, with explanations, for the singles draw. Feel free to remove this if you don't think it's appropriate!—Preceding unsigned comment added by Pretty Green (talk) 11:54, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

No problem in my opinion, but I removed "Minimum", I found it ambiguous. Lajbi Holla @ me • CP 11:11, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2009 Champion[edit]

What about the introduction mentioning Davydebko's incapability to qualify and to defend his title (as it does in the Grand Slam pages)? Something like "Nikolay Davydenko is the defendig champion but didn't qualify this year."Lajbi Holla @ me • CP 11:11, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Players falling short from qualifying[edit]

Let's keep those players inside the contenders table as far as the alternates are decided because it is based upon the same race. So counting on the experiences from the last years' draw injuries happened each time so the hope remains for top 8-10 to get in. Mrf8128 removed Monfils once again, but I recalculated it and he only has 1840 point (not 1885). Let's say if he passes Isner they can be exchanged. Lajbi Holla @ me • CP 21:06, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see everyone is editing like crazy and ignoring the usage of talk pages.Lajbi Holla @ me • CP 08:39, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Er no doesn't work like that. They just go down the list until someone says yes it's not automatic KnowIG (talk) 02:06, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I know. Theoretically (according to the rulebook) it works like I said. And if a player announces his retreat quiet early it happens so as well (like last year when Söderling came in who immediately followed Roddick on the list). Technically : Stepanek's jump-in two years ago happened in the midst of the round robin stage, and none of the others from the top 50 wanted to travel to China just for being in reserve for the whole event. So let's say if Roddick retires for the third time (smile) but decides it before the beginning of the tournament no matter who's in the 9th position will say "yes", that's for sure (who doesn't want to earn money and points?). So a retirement IN TIME will result in a chance for replacement for player 9. Lajbi Holla @ me • CP 10:23, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Berdych-Söderling head-to-head[edit]

There is an error on it: it says that Söderling is winning 6-3, but Berdych is losing 3-7. Which is the correct one? I think the overall for both is also wrong. 1969 (talk) 18:33, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to ATP 6-3 is correct. They played an exhibition match in Budapest two weeks ago, which was won by Söderling, but that doesn't count. Lajbi Holla @ me • CP 21:14, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Head-to-Heads rankings[edit]

It would be very important to put a footnote converning on the basis of their rankings (or decide here in the talk page, which one is relevant:

  • chronological order (time of qualification)
  • race (in case of teams it makes no difference)
  • world rank (luckily it is the same as the race regarding the singles - still it is needed to be indicated)

Ideas?Lajbi Holla @ me • CP 16:54, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Doubles H2H[edit]

  • Nestor/Zimonjic has an 2-0 vs Bhupathi/Mirnyi according to the row and 1-1 according to the coloumn.
  • Moodie/Norman has 1-1 vs Dlouhý/Paes according to the row and 0-0 according to the coloumn.
  • Bryan/Bryan has 6-0 vs Dlouhý/Paes according to the row and 4-1 according to the coloumn.
  • Nestor/Zimonjic has an 2-0 vs Kubot/Marach according to the row and 2-3 according to the coloumn.

Also it seem like just some switched the relating boxes that caused a domino effect on the table, but still needs to be cleared which ones are correct. Lajbi Holla @ me • CP 23:07, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I came to a decision to move the table here to verification since the Kubot/Marach - Bhupathi/Mirnyi "seems-to-be-correct" coloumn+row 3-1 H2H is actually 2-1 so the table has errors throughout. Lajbi Holla @ me • CP 00:12, 17 November 2010 (UTC) tennis.com is used to compare up-to-date results with these ones.I expanded my search on ITFTennis Bolding indicates a corrected number.[reply]

  Bryan
Bryan 		Nestor
Zimonjić 		Bhupathi
Mirnyi 		Dlouhý
Paes 		Kubot
Marach 		Fyrstenberg
Matkowski 		Moodie
Norman 		Melzer
Petzschner		 Overall
1 United States Bob Bryan/United States Mike Bryan 6–8checkY 3–4checkY 4–1checkY 6–0checkY 10–5checkY 4–2checkY 1–0checkY 34-20!!!checkY
2 Canada Daniel Nestor/Serbia Nenad Zimonjić 8–6checkY 1–1checkY 7–1checkY 3–1checkY 7–5checkY 3–0checkY 0–0checkY 29-14
3 India Mahesh Bhupathi/Belarus Max Mirnyi 4–3checkY 1–1checkY 0–1 checkY 2–1 checkY 3–0checkY 0–0checkY 1–0checkY 11-6checkY
4 Czech Republic Lukáš Dlouhý/India Leander Paes 1–4 checkY 1–7checkY 1–0 checkY 0–2checkY 2–2checkY 2–0checkY 1–0checkY 8-15checkY
5 Poland Łukasz Kubot/Austria Oliver Marach 0–6checkY 1–3checkY 1–2 checkY 2–0checkY 1–3checkY 1–1checkY 0–0checkY 6-15checkY
6 Poland Mariusz Fyrstenberg/Poland Marcin Matkowski 5–10checkY 5–7checkY 0–3checkY 2–2checkY 3–1checkY 0–1checkY 0–0checkY 15-24 checkY
7 South Africa Wesley Moodie/Belgium Dick Norman 2–4checkY 0–3checkY 0–0checkY 0–2checkY 1–1checkY 1–0checkY 1–1checkY 5-11checkY
8 Austria Jurgen Melzer/Germany Philipp Petzschner 0–1checkY 0–0checkY 0–1checkY 0–1checkY 0–0checkY 0–0checkY 1–1checkY 1-4checkY

<Important! Before reverting again> Just one example Bryan/Bryan-Moodie/Norman 2-0

  • In reality :

BNP Paribas Masters 2010-11-11 Quarter-Finals Bryan/Bryan 2-0 Moodie/Norman 7-6 7-6

Western & Southern Financial Group Masters 2010-08-22 Semi-Finals Moodie/Norman 0-2 Bryan/Bryan 6-7 5-7

Wimbledon 2010-06-30 Quarter-Finals Moodie/Norman 3-1 Bryan/Bryan 7-6 7-6 6-7 7-5

Western & Southern Financial Group Masters 2009-08-22 Quarter-Finals Bryan/Bryan 2-0 Moodie/Norman 6-4 7-6

Wimbledon 2009-07-02 Semi-Finals Bryan/Bryan 3-0 Moodie/Norman 7-6 7-6 6-4

Roland Garros 2009-06-04 Semi-Finals Moodie/Norman 2-1 Bryan/Bryan 0-6 7-6 6-4

Please check on other site OR in the corresponding Wikipedia articles.Lajbi Holla @ me • CP 01:30, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the number of faults in the table I declare that the http://www.matchstat.com/ website is totally unreliable (if we suppose it was the only source for that mess). Lajbi Holla @ me • CP 18:20, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Overall + Ratio[edit]

The overall coloumn in its current form doesn't represent well the winning chances. A neutral viewer could think that a bigger won matches sum means a better performance or could be confused when it comes to compare two - big differenced - number, let's say a 11-5 with a 44-21. With the addition of a Ratio (in brackets or in a separate coloumn) it could be made clear which team/player has better results. In case of Nadal — Federer 66-29 (2.27) — 77-34 (2.26), with that simple maths the Wikipedia reader can see that Nadal is slightly better (while Federer has more victories). For the small/large number controversy : Bryan/Bryan has 34-20 (1.7) compared to Bhupathi/Mirnyi 11-6 (1.8) results that the latter is better, which noone could tell by the first look. Anybody agrees adding this? Lajbi Holla @ me • CP 17:53, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But why in ratio, when percentages would do, and surely, more people would relate to percentages rather than ratios KnowIG (talk) 08:04, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It could do the job either. % is fine for me too. Lajbi Holla @ me • CP 10:15, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Groupings Section[edit]

I see no point in having the following section:

And so on. It just adds nothing to the head to head table other than the seeds and groups the players are in. And this information could be more easily expressed in 4 tables (if that). See WP:TABLES 82.16.194.7 (talk) 22:17, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since it it the ATP World Tour Finals, I think a section summarizing the whole ATP tour while putting an accent on the players' achievements and relationship within a group is adequate. Imagine a reader who doesn't follow the tennis events on a daily basis or hasn't even heard about Fyrstenberg/Matkowski so to say. You can't convert every info into a table and Wikipedia supports prose instead of "list-heavy"/"table-heavy" articles. Lajbi Holla @ me • CP 00:24, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Round Robin[edit]

We should come to a consensus on the standards of match reviews. You've cut these articles quite short compared to the same round robin descriptions of last year.


In this one paragraph excerpt we come across everything : nosebleed, ace, first challenge (which I also found useless but won't remove just because I think it so) even love games. There's no such guideline restricting the length of match details. In its current form those 4-liners don't say nothing. No turning points, no chances for the players to win game/set/match just the score and some trivia (30th win for Federer(?)... Roddick will reach his 10th, shall we include that one as well? Does it really count or make any difference?).Lajbi Holla @ me • CP 09:57, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can not put POV of play by play in the article, unless it is sourced. The source does not go play by play and the matches although, yes Sod Murray had some great points, were mainly boring. E.g. Sod holds, then Murray breaks 2 times, Sod holds, Murray win set. Set 2 test for both on serve, Sod breaks at 4-3, Murray serves out match. But then we have great discriptions of play, mean gee comeon how POV is that. Federer's 30th win is hardly trivia, as it's in the title of the source the ATP obviously considers that important. KnowIG (talk) 10:13, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
ATP advertises itself. Of course he put up a title like this to a less than half hour fast win. It's trivia, though it could be useful in an other section but not the match description (it doesn't "describe it" it is just as important that they now have a 11-0 overall and 2-0 in the history of finals). As I noted Nadal/Djokovic/Roddick could win their 10th match in the finals. We cannot put a player in front of the other regarding related infos just because ATP does so (for commercial/ticket selling purposes). I still think these are pointlessly short texts which add nothing to a simple score. I must also note that in the 2009 ATP World Tour Finals there's not even a single link for the match descriptions...(that's not good I just noted). If we search the web we can find sources to every statement by the logical reasoning that the matches happened as described. And in case of Murray-Söderling the ATP had all the data I included and I also rephrased ATP's "cruising", "terrific", "outrageous". Now those were unneutral. So putting up a reftag or helping find trustworthy tennis sites for refs is way better than deleting (rather than erasing the whole 2009 article for example). Lajbi Holla @ me • CP 10:51, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But they don't go into phrases like Federer hit a forehand Ferrer sliced a backhand, Federer miss hits a shot bounces off the net and surprises Ferrer who smashes the ball into the net. Not even live text commentaries say that. And again how the heck is 30th trivial. Not many players reach 30 wins so what is your problem with that statement. That statement is fact and does nothing to promote tickets, if it was said in the build up then yes it could have been seen to sell tickets, but it wasn't it was done AFTER the event, so it's staying in. KnowIG (talk) 10:56, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It could stay, I don't care it just doesn't supply important whatever about the match to be one of the seven sentences that was left (and you can still sell tickets to the next matches in the finals or even the upcoming Federer matches. "XY has booked his ticket, do you?")
  • The titles are always like movie taglines : "Murray Cruises Past Soderling In Front Of Capacity Crowd" sounds like a visit-britain.com header, but can it be included like this? No. Importance? None.
  • backhand-forehand-coming to net...etc. Yes I must say there are reviews like this [2]. I'm not saying this is a word-by-word reference it's just an example I found within a 1 minute search. Lajbi Holla @ me • CP 11:15, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Re Souce no it didn't do any form of backhand forehand description of rallies. B) it was a POV blog. look at what a live text commetray said KnowIG (talk) 11:18, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It was a subpage of tennis.com. But you don't see my point. I'm not arguing about getting my edits back. I just want all the finals articles to have a standard. Long match description, short description, no description? That's all. And if we agree on something we can transform the other articles into a similar form. I cast my vote on a longer description, since it looks fine for me in the page of the previous tour final and otherwise the article is nothing more than a statistical gibberish. And I guess we all agree that such standard is needed, it gives the reader a structure he/she can get used to. Lajbi Holla @ me • CP 11:46, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed it needs to be made different from the draw pages or otherwise there's no point in doing it. I spent quiet a bit on 09 removing POV, but if not a lot happens so to speak apart from one player breaking everytime or just once a set then I can't see how it can be made longer. The article would also look better and longer if the dubs was given more attension. But hay that's my view of it and of course others can come and agree or diagree KnowIG (talk) 13:26, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on 2010 ATP World Tour Finals. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:48, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2010 ATP World Tour Finals. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:49, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on 2010 ATP World Tour Finals. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:05, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Contenders Points Breakdown[edit]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2010_ATP_World_Tour_Finals&oldid=1196560202"