OK, let's start ...

First of all, this implies that they haven't just doubled all the points for AMS events and slams. Instead, they've increased the differentials in the later stages as well.

e.g. slams currently go 1000, 700, 450, 250 ... and doubling that you get 2000, 1400, 900, 500 ... for 2008 c.f. next year's proposed schedule of 2000, 1200, 720, 360 ...

All this is going to achieve is to benefit the serial muppets (i.e. those who have one or two spectacular tournaments each year then do nothing for the rest of the year, e.g. Dammit, Gonzo, Numpty, etc) and those who get a lucky draw in the biggest events (or one that opens up in a fortuitous way) over the more consistent players. In my opinion that's something they should be modifying the rankings to work against instead of exacerbating it.

Also, the differentials between broadly similar tournaments (the new 250s and 500s, equivalent to the old 175-300 range) are increasing, thus ensuring that even less tournaments really 'count'.

Next, while doubling all carried forward 2008 points is probably the least unfair option given the mess they have already created, it is going to create some farcical anomalies next year, especially when combined with the changed differentials between rounds. For example:

1) Semi-finalists in 2008 slams are going to be defending 900 (2 x 450) points but can only get 720 points if they reach the semis again.

2) Winners of run of the mill (winner gets 175) tournaments in 2008 are going to be defending 350 (2 x 175) points but can only get 250 points if they win again.

etc, etc

Where this gets even more farcical is that run of the mill ATP tournament wins and runner-up or below performances in AMS events and slams achieved in 2009 are effectively going to have a lower weighting in the rankings than the same performances achieved in similar 2008 events!

Still, at least they aren't going to advatange the clay court players for a change - by mid-year, players who did well in ATP events in the US hard court season and the indoor season are going to have a significant advantage over those who do well in the first half of 2009, albeit only a temporary one. Except that it might not just be temporary, because distorted seedings will affect draws which will affect results which will affect future seedings, etc, and (unlike the luck of the draw that you get in any tournament) in a non-random way that advantages one type of player over another.


Most worrying of all, they still haven't said anything about Challengers and Futures.

Possibilities:

1) They keep the points for Challengers and Futures in 2009 the same as in 2008 and only double 2008 points for ATP 250 events and above - that would massively raise the barrier between the top 60-100 and the Challenger level players trying to get there

2) As 1), but they double all carried forward points - that would be a complete farce, since performances in 2008 Challengers and Futures would effectively be worth twice as much as equivalent performances in 2009

3) They double all Challenger and Futures points - this would certainly be the least bad option from the point of view of Challengers and Futures players, but can you really see them giving 200 points to the winner of a 150K+H when the winners of most ATP events only get 250? I can't!

4) Some hastily cobbled together fudge that they haven't thought of yet

My money's on option 4) ...

I wouldn't mind a messy transition like this so much if they were actually doing something radical to improve the fairness of the ranking system, but they're just tinkering with it (and in my opinion, making it worse by increasing the differentials) in order to justify changing the names of tournaments from Masters Series to 1000s, name changes that even statheads like me who get tend to like numbers think are a bad idea anyway!

That'll do for now.

-- Edited by steven at 18:25, 2008-10-16

Well summarised, Steven. I have written about this on other boards, so I won't repeat myself, as you have pretty much said the same as I did. Another thing I pointed out was that somebody who won a 175-pointer at the start of 2008 and defended it at the start of 2009 would defend the title but lose 100 points from his ranking! (2 x 175 = 350 to defend but only 250 to gain). This will of course happen all through the year, but favours those who win tournaments towards the end of the year as they will keep the higher points longer.

Once this settles down then probably time to judge it.

The way I see it is that all points held by a player are relevant to all the other players ranked...that may seem to simple but no matter what pts are on offer you will still have players separated by so many pts. Does it really matter how many pts seperates 151st to 152nd ? You would think / hope they would have modelled this after years 1, 2 and 3 just to see how things settle down. It should not be harder, in the long run, to get your ranking up as all the lower ranked players will be going for the same pts.

As for the real need to change it...well I agree with Indy...a tad silly.

steven wrote:

---

indiana wrote:

---

If you look at the points, say for majors :
Old doubled :  2000, 1400, 900, 500
New ;             2000, 1200, 720, 360
then all points, except for the winner, under the new system are less than the old system, the  overall ponts up to quarter are less, and then the differentials from quarter to semi to final are less.  The only differential that increases is that from the winner to finalist ( and to everyone else really for that matter ). Apart from the winner, in no way is the new system rewarding one-off performances. And hey if you actually win a Grand Slam, or even a Master Series, you deserve all you gert in my opinion.  There are "lucky" quarter, semi and final runs, rarely winners, particularly of Majors.

---

I totally agree that there are usually only "lucky" quarter, semi and final runs, rarely winners, particularly of Majors, but the fact that all points under the new system (except for the winner) are less is a red herring.

The important measure, i think (and hence the one I based my analysis on), is how many consistent R4/QF performances does it take to amass as many points as one muppet-style SF/Final.

Under the current system, runner-up points for a slam (700) are 2.8x QF points (250), whereas under the new system, the differential will be 3.33x.

Similarly, under the current system, semi-final points for a slam are 3x R4 points, whereas under the new system (assuming they halve QF points to get R4 points like they have halved SF points to get QF points), the differential will be 4x.

---

Yes, Steven, I do see your points there.

I was looking at the points differentials from final downwards in amount of points.  When you look at it in terms of multiples, I do see exactly where you are coming from.

Bearing in mind, I already did say that just looking at the points, the final, semi and quarter final amounts just seem now too low compared to what they were before, I would agree that the previous was better both in amount of points and in multiple differentiials.

It would be really good to hear the logic they have ( do they have any ? ) for the new levels.

I suspect they may say that they wanted to give more preeminence for the winner, which arguably is fine, ( although I definitely think has gone too far ), but the following ( now lower ) points could at least have been held to the same multiple rerlatinnship of each other.  And as I say I actually think the winner's points in the new system are comparatively too high against the finalist etc.

So we are agreed, on the set of points released so far, the old ones were better !

Hey, you might win me over.  I'm now verging to "slightly farcical" 

PS :  I wish you hadn't mentioned "round robins" !  That reminder doesn't instill me with confidence.  I did dismiss that out of hand.  Tennis is about winning and losing, not anything to do with progression being possibly based on how much you win or lose by, sets or games differentials. That they didn't understand that left me fairly aghast.

-- Edited by indiana at 22:36, 2008-10-16

* hard stare at Drew * LOL

Still no word on what is happening with Challenger/Futures points? If they don't double those as well then the Top 100 is virtually unreachable to new players!!