New ranking system in 2009

The Hoose · Satellite level

RE: New ranking system in 2009

The Hoose · Satellite level

Also, if the doubling of points allows us to have a point for qualifying for a futures tournament, I think that would be a lot fairer at the lower levels.

steven · Tennis legend

I agree with both of the Hoose's last two points, but I'll be amazed if that's what they actually do.

Count Zero · Tennis legend

So this is the current points system:

Total Financial Points
Category Commitment W F S Q 16 32 64 128 qualifying
-------- ----------- --- --- --- --- ---- ---- ---- ----- ----------
Grand Slams 1000 700 450 250 150 75 35 5 15

Tennis Masters 500 350 225 125 75 35 5(20) (5) 15*
Series

Int'l Series 1,000,000 300 210 135 75 25 15 0 10*
Gold 800,000 250 175 110 60 25 15 0 10*

Int'l Series 1,000,000 250 175 110 60 25 15 0 10*
800,000 225 155 100 55 20 10 0 10*
600,000# 200 140 90 50 20 10 0 5*
600,000 200 140 90 50 15 0 5
400,000 175 120 75 40 15 0 5

Challengers150,000+H 100 70 45 23 10 0 3
150,000 90 63 40 21 9 0 3
125,000 80 56 36 19 8 0 3
100,000 70 49 31 16 7 0 3
75,000 60 42 27 14 6 0 3
50,000 55 38 24 13 5 0 2
37,500+H 55 38 24 13 5 0 2
25,000+H 50 35 22 12 5 0 2

Futures 15,000+H 24 16 8 4 1 0
15,000 18 12 6 3 1 0
10,000 12 8 4 2 1 0

so are all the ATP's beign condensed into 4 types, GS, masters seris = 1000, Gold series = 500, inlt series = 250? so they are tkaing 9 different event levels ans turnign it into 4.

perhaps they will do somehting simlar with the challenegers, i can see a top challenger win rising to 150/175 points. so a bottome rung chakknger would jump up to around 75/85 points maybe? perhaps they will cut out some of the levls top condense it a bit as well.

Grr it lost my formating

-- Edited by Count Zero at 11:46, 2008-10-17

-- Edited by Count Zero at 11:47, 2008-10-17

wolf · Tennis legend

I've never liked the idea of giving points for qualifying in futures, ok you deserve it if you qualify for say one of those 128 draws in USA, but if you go to Africa you can have one match against a local player to qualify, do you really deserve a point for that? What needs to be changed is to give 2 points for reaching R2 of a 15k+H and to give points for winning matches in ATP qualifying, and not just for qualifying, that is only done at the big ATP events at the moment.

ForeverDelayed · Grand Slam Champion

Willing to reserve judgement on the ranking system until all the details are released about it, but it doesn't look particularly convincing at the moment, and you do get the feeling that they haven't thought it through at all levels yet, especially at challenger and futures level.

And if they are just going to double the points, it does raise the question of why they are bothering to do so.

And a point for futures qualifying? Can't agree with that at all, as so many of the qualifying draws are just so weak that you would get a point for beating 1 local player at times (or the Pakistan event last year where 7 players got a bye through qualifying to the main draw) - what would happen if it were introduced is that players wouldn't bother to register for the tournaments, but would sign-up for qualifying instead to get the extra point knowing they wouldn't lose in qualifying.

A point or 2 for final round of ATP qualies though could be introduced.

steven · Tennis legend

Maybe they will condense the Challenger levels as well, as you suggest Count, that might neatly get around the problem and with very few Challengers above 100K at the moment, the discrepancy between 2008 and 2009 points for equivalent tournaments wouldn't be as much of an issue as for the ATP events.

I agree with wolf that points for winning rounds in ATP qualifying would be an improvement and that getting a point for qualifying for a Future where there are likely to be only one or two qualifying rounds against unranked players wouldn't be good, but it wouldn't be impossible to come up with a rule that would limit this to events with a qualifying draw above a certain size or where there is a full complement of qualifying seeds, something like that.

That would still give an advantage to players playing in tournaments that are weak relative to the lelvel of prize money available, but that problem exists throughout the ranking system and could only be got rid of by changing the ranking system to take into account the strength of opponents played or the strength of each tournament as a whole instead of just the prize money available, which I can't see happening any time soon.

If they are going to double Futures points, then I'd also be in favour of using the room for manoeuvre that would give to differentiate the points for getting through R1 at the different levels of Futures.

-- Edited by steven at 12:28, 2008-10-17

seagull · Hall of fame

Got some more info on this and the challenger/futures points are nowhere near doubling, and in some cases (in early rounds) are going down!!

More craziness from the ATP:

GRAND SLAM (Masters 1000s are exactly the same, but divided by two)

Increase: (100%) (71%) (60%) (44 %) (33%)
2009: W (2000) F (1200) SF (720) QF (360) 16 (200)
2008: W (1000) F (700) SF (450) QF (250) 16 (150)

ATP 500

Increase: (66%) (42%) (33%) (20%) (80%)
2009 W (500) F (300) SF (180) QF (90) 16 (45)
2008 W (300) F (210) SF (135) QF (75) 16 (25)

$125,000 CHALLENGER

Increase: (25%) ( 7%) (-3%) (-5%) (-33%)
2009 W (100) F (60) SF (35) QF (18) 16 (6)
2008 W (80) F (56) SF (36) QF (19) 16 (8)

$50,000 CHALLENGER

Increase: (50%) (28 %) (22 %) (25%) (0%)
2009 W (75) F (45) SF (27) QF (15) 16 (5)
2008 W (50) F (35) SF (22) QF (12) 16 (5)

$15,000 FUTURES
Increase: (28%) (16%) (16%) (0%) (0%)
2009 W (25) F (14) SF (7) QF (3) 16 (1)
2008 W (18) F (12) SF (6) QF (3) 16 (1)

Count Zero · Tennis legend

thanks SG.

a very quick idea is why bother playing the big challengers now? the 50k's give good points with a differential of only 25 between the 2 winners. no differtinal for winning the opening round!

i assume the draws will even out to an extent to take account of this though, with perhaps the cuts raising on the 50's and dropping on the 125's

steven · Tennis legend

I had a hunch they'd screw those doing Challengers and Futures, but that's far worse than even I expected.

"Lowlights"

1) if you're defending 36 points (2 x 18) from a 15K Futures win, you'll end up with a net loss of 11 points even if you win the same tournament again

2) if you're defending 100 points (2 x 50) from a 50K Challenger win, you'll end up with a net loss of 25 points even if you win the same tournament again

I wonder if they have even thought about how this is going to disadvantage up and coming players next year as against those who played a full year in 2008. I know you can argue that it'll all sort itself out by the end of 2009 when all the 2008 points have come off, but in the meantime it's going to affect whether players make the entry cut, whether they get seeded, etc, and that's all going to affect the rankings long after 2009 is over. Obviously, the luck of the draw has an even bigger effect, but the difference is that luck of the draw is random bias, whereas this is systematic bias.

Btw I hope the Brits realise that every match they win in Challengers and Futures this year is going to be worth 1.5-2 match wins in the same level of event between 1 Jan 2009 and whenever each 2008 tournament comes off next year.

-- Edited by steven at 16:09, 2008-10-29

steven · Tennis legend

Count Zero wrote:
thanks SG.

a very quick idea is why bother playing the big challengers now? the 50k's give good points with a differential of only 25 between the 2 winners. no differtinal for winning the opening round!

i assume the draws will even out to an extent to take account of this though, with perhaps the cuts raising on the 50's and dropping on the 125's

The "16"s denote the L16 round - the points are the numbers in brackets.

Count Zero · Tennis legend

steven wrote:

The "16"s denote the L16 round - the points are the numbers in brackets.

hmmm, <-Smug Mode Off->

Count Zero · Tennis legend

they are really trrying to push the gaps between winning and being a runner up though arent they?
going from 15pts currently on a 50k to 30pts.

Count Zero · Tennis legend

btw SG where did u find this, cant see nayhting on MTF (i have posted it in the challenger section tho)

steven · Tennis legend

I'd actually turn that table around a bit, doubling the 2008 points and looking at the drops between points being defended and points you can get next year for reaching the same round. Just doing that for three levels of events:

GRAND SLAM (Masters 1000s are exactly the same, but divided by two)

2008 x 2: W (2000) F (1400) SF (900) QF (500) R4 (300)
2009 x 1: W (2000) F (1200) SF (720) QF (360) R4 (200)
Change: same, -14%, -20%, -28%, -33%

Masters 1000s are virtually the same, but divided by two; 500s similar divided by 2 again, slightly different in the early rounds.

$50,000 CHALLENGER

2008 x 2: W (100) F (70) SF (44) QF (24) R2 (10)
2009 x 1: W (075) F (45) SF (27) QF (15) R2 (5)
Change: -25%, -36%, -39%, -38%, -50%

$15,000 FUTURES

2008 x 2: W (36) F (24) SF (12) QF (6) R2 (2)
2009 x 1: W (25) F (14) SF (07) QF (3) R2 (1)
Change: -31%, -42%, -42%, -50%, -50%