On Rankings

Rankings are a thing of the past. Yet they are often misunderstood as representing something instantaneous in the present moment.

Let's take two examples. First consider the current ATP tennis rankings which show Federer as number one and Nadal as number two. Some supporters of Nadal claimed that he would have been number one had he won Wimbledon and the rankings would be wrong to say otherwise. What they fail to account for is that rankings only tell us of the past under some criteria. In tennis that is the last 52 weeks. What the rankings say is who "was" number one over the last 52 weeks. And indeed Federer's overall record is better over the last 52 weeks. If on the other hand one looks at the ATP race (which looks at results from the beginning of a year) Nadal is ahead. Simply meaning that he has collected more points since the beginning of the year than Federer. ATP race was maligned as giving ridiculous results early in the year. However, it gives perfectly decent results. It tells you indeed who is ahead on the number of tournaments played (not who will be ahead once the year is done).

As our second example let's look at test cricket (team) rankings. They take a longer period than a year into account. These days there is not much controversy over who is number one since Australia (not unlike Federer over the last few years) has maintained a large lead over the rest of the feild. When Australia and England met for the Ashes (with England ranked as number two) there was some talk about England being number one if they defeated the Australians. Again looking at the rankings for what they are (performance over some past period) this was nonsense. After all Federer loses to lesser players from time to time yet his ranking still remains because over a period of time he has demonstrated better results.

Maybe that is how rankings should be mentioned: Federer was number one for the last year (instead of he is number one) and Australia was number one since August three years ago.

Of course there is also the other problem where there is a problem with how the rankings are calculated. Let's say a very strong team meets a very weak team in cricket. Two tests out of three end in draws due to rain affected days. The higher ranked team still loses points (due to no fault of their own) and the weaker team gains points (due to no merit on their part).