New ranking system in 2009

seagull · Hall of fame

RE: New ranking system in 2009

seagull · Hall of fame

By the way looks like early 2009 GB events will be:

12/1 - Glasgow F1
19/1 - Sheffield F2
9/3 - Tipton F3
16/3 - Bath F4
23/3 - Jersey Challenger?

Compares to last year which was

14/1 - Sunderland F1
21/1 - Sheffield F2
28/1 - Tipton F3
17/3 - Bath F4
24/3 - Jersey F5

Count Zero · Tennis legend

thanks SG.

am i right in thinking this could make it tougher to even get on the tour in the 1st place for a while, as all the players will start with 2 rankings points? but winning a 1st rd futures will be worth 1. untill the 1 doubled poiint comes round in the year and they possibly slip back to 1 if they defend it but no better.

i cant believe the atp is happy with all this just to rename 1 tournamnet series. and its a sh1te name at that too.

steven · Tennis legend

Just one more thing - looking past 2009 and the problems likely to be caused by the transitional arrangements, I don't think it's actually going to be particularly harder or easier than it is now for players to get into the top 100 at the expense of those already in there.

This is because although points available for reaching the later rounds in Challengers are going to be a smaller % of the points for reaching the later rounds in ATP events than they are now, the points for the early rounds of ATP events are going to suffer the same fate, so that should even things out between those only just ranked high enough to get into ATPs at the moment and those who are chasing them down.

However, for the reasons given in the last post, it will be a lot harder for newer players to catch up with established players during 2009 itself.

-- Edited by steven at 22:28, 2008-10-29

steven · Tennis legend

Justin Gimelstob, now on the ATP Board, has sent a response to the Globe & Mail - you can read it at http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servl...Story/WBTennis

It gives some insight into what they were trying to achieve (though what the journalist says underneath makes more sense to me), but he conveniently ignores the elements that are causing the most concern on the boards, i.e. Challengers & Futures and the transition arrangements.

indiana · Tennis legend

The journalist's sign off line says it all :

"Bottom line about the ATP rankings system; if it ain't broke, don't fix it."

...and having something in Mr Disney's empire that so surely wasn't broke I thought was a real positive.

Actually, my experience is there are 2 main categories of folk here as regards the tennis public : 1) these who just accept the rankings and aren't really interested in the minutiae, and 2) those who like to see how the rankings are arrived at and basically know the details.

Neither needs this new "easy to understand" business with tournament renames and everything being half of half etc, and almost everyone would just prefer that it is basically a fair system for both the top and the up and coming players.

-- Edited by indiana at 01:54, 2008-11-14

imoen · Admin: Moderator+Tennis Legend

indiana wrote:

Actually, my experience is there are 2 main categories of folk here as regards the tennis public : 1) these who just accept the rankings and aren't really interested in the minutiae, and 2) those who like to see how the rankings are arrived at and basically know the details.

Herein lies the problem. These changes (the way I see it) are not designed to aid the 'tennis public' those guys are already following tennis and may grumble about changes but very few will stop watching/engaging with the sport as a result. Instead these new 'easy to understand' changes are aimed at enticing the potential fans; at drawing people more easily into supporting and following a sport which at first glance can be quick tricky to understand.

If you look at it from that angle the change becomes less of an 'if it ain't broke don't fix it' and more of a sensible idea. I mean just look at the ATP tournament comparative table a couple of pages ago, there are currently 7 different trypes of ATP tournament. That will be cut down to 4. That is undeniably easier to understand. So if you're someone who say watches Wimbledon in the summer, catches sight of a specific player and wants to follow them for the rest of the year, having four, clearly defined tournament types is fantastic. At this stage of fandom, you don't care about the individual points for each round (speaking from personal experience that interest comes at least a year after you've followed the ATP tour) and you certainly don't care about the challengers/futures and what happens with them, you're following someone on the ATP tour only.

I'm not saying that the new ranking system is flawless, it clearly isn't and as a bordering on the fanatic type of fan (and regardless of forums membership numbers we're actually a relatively small group in the grand scheme of things) I wish it was fairer.

But I do know that I will be reserving all judgement until the end of next year when the changeover is over. Judging a new system on how the changeover works is silly, it's like saying Obama's presidency is already disappointing because he hasn't passed any new laws yet. A year is a long time and it looks like the coming one will be full of frustrations and minor annoyances, but it's the only way to effect this change with the rolling ranking system tennis employs (a system I dearly love).

indiana · Tennis legend

I do think you make some very good points, imoen.

I certainly do intend to give it the full year before really coming to any judgement. Doubt if we've got much choice since it's going to happen !

My concerns were more over the new system itself than the changeover re old points to new points, points defending etc. Certainly at ATP level, the double points until these ones come off seems perfectly sensible and the fairest way to do it.

I remain unconvinced about the new points spreads themselves, and had just really thought the old ones, certainly at Grand Slam and Masters Series level were somehow just right.

You do make a good point about less different levels of points for ATP tournaments, I did always think it anomalous that there were all those levels based on different prize money etc with some basically weaker fields getting higher points than some other fields. That's just wrong to me, and I hadn't previously really thought through how good that change at least might be.

I am still very unclear how this all feeds throgh to challenger and futures level, but I assune this will become much clearer fairly soon into the new year.

Anyway, their ideal will clearly be that the "tennis public" grows to accept the changes as at least being reasonably fair, if not necessarily to totally love them, and that new fans have been more drawn in and understand iand relate to it all better.

I am presuming the ATP will be conducting some extensive surveys in say a year's time. I also would hope that they did a lot of surveying prior to the change announcement, but who knows ?

Count Zero · Tennis legend

an update on mtf in challenger section, there is a thread, top of page 2 with the rankings. cant cut and paste it here tho.

mjd · Challenger qualifying

Guess this is what you meant!
Seems crazy to me! For the first few years it is designed to protect those already at the top.

Difficult to read text at the bottom but this is what I believe it says -

Barclays ATP World Tour Finals: 1600 for undefeated champion (200 for each round robin match win, plus 400 for a semifinal win).

(1) 12 points only if the main draw is larger than 56(?)

(2) 10 points only if the main draw is larger than 32

(3) 6 points if the main draw is larger than 32

-- Edited by mjd at 23:16, 2008-12-08

steven · Tennis legend

I haven't had a good rant about the new ranking system for at least a few days, and something someone said about Doha on AM.com (which I agree with, though I don't think he went far enough) has set me off again. I wonder what people here think about this, especially the last bit ...

Doha

Not only is the winner of Doha this year effectively only going to get half the points Andy had to defend from last year, but this year 4 of the top 10 are playing there including Fed, Rafa and Andy, whereas last year only 2 of the top 10 were there, and they were Davydenko (who has sensibly cleared off to Chennai this year) and (this'll make you laugh) Robredo!

So this year Andy will have to win a much stronger tournament to effectively get half the points last year's winner got ... and anyone else who goes out in the same round as last year (which will be quite an achievement under the circumstances) will get less than half the points they were defending. The ATP are probably relieved that this is getting hidden a bit by the fact that the 2008 Doha points came off a week early because it just shows how silly a ranking system that takes no account of the strength of the event can be.

Queen's

Queen's is of course another tournament where the ranking points available have never matched the strength of the field which it attracts because, like Doha, it is one of just two tournaments you can play to get practice on a surface before a slam if you want to have a week off before the slam itself. It's completely different for the other two slams which have a Masters event two weeks before them - Madrid (previously Hamburg) two weeks before RG and Cincy two weeks before the USO, except last year when it was the Olympics instead.

It seems pretty shocking (though in some ways predictable) that not only have they not created a grass court Masters as part of the revamp, they haven't even given Queen's or Halle 500 status.

This means that because Queen's is a 56 draw, winning a round at Queen's this year (usually a huge achievement for a GB WC, because they it tends to mean beating a top 100 player) will only be worth as many points as winning R1 in the lowest level Challenger (or qualifying for a 75K+ Challenger) and only 1/4 of the points anyone who got through R1 at Queen's last year will be defending. Any Brit qualifying for Queen's will only get 5 points as well - both used to be worth twice as many points as a R1 win in a 35K+H and even that seemed a bit stingy to me.

Any Brit with any sense (*) will gladly forego a Queen's WC to get one for Eastbourne (i.e. the old Nottingham), since that is now a 250 too but it's a 32 draw (I assume it still will be anyway, it never attracts that strong a field) so 20 points will be on offer to a R1 winner and 12 to a qualifier.

(*) as long as they don't need to play qualifying for Wimby, at least

-- Edited by steven at 12:59, 2009-01-07

indiana · Tennis legend

And the logic of not having any grass tournament as a 500 tournament, in particular Queens with its likely size and stength of field, and the fact that it was a previously a 225 tournament ( effectively 450 in new money ) is .... ?

Answers on a postcard or the back of a postage stamp or whatever ....

Drew · Jan 11, 2009

Looks like OEM is as bewildered as you Steven !

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/tennis/article5448559.ece

indiana · Tennis legend

The challengers and futures have been ridiculously devalued in comparative terms from before, and as Neil Harman says, it will almost certainly make it so much harder ( despiritedly harder ? ) for players to move quickly through the ranks.

Now there is case for making things clearer, in conjunction with promoting the ATP tour, but this obsession with 1/2 of 1/2's etc has had marked down features. There is promotion, clarity and unfairness, Unfairness is not acceptable, especially when it impacts on the vast bulk of players below the top level !!

In particular, although doubling the winner's Grand Slam and Masters Series points, having the range of ATP 250 tournaments ( well under double any previous ATP tournament ) immediately was going to have a knock on effect on maximum points for challengers and futures in trying not to overreward them in comparison to ATP tournaments. But they still seem to have managed to even more devalue them !

Also, we have had early very strong 250 tournaments and over the season as a whole I don't imagine the 500 tournaments are going to be at all worthy of having twice the points of the 250 tournaments.

In my view, if going down this road, there should have been ATP 500 and 350 tournaments ( not 250 ! ). So as well as not having such a ridiculous difference between ATP tournmaments, they would have ended up doubling the lowest previous ATP tournament of 175.

They could have then kept fair comparsions by as near as possible doubling winner's points for challengers and futures ( while less than doubling on earlier losses just as the ATP tournaments ), without then bringing them too comparatively close to the lowest ATP tournaments.

A lowest ATP level of 350, instead of 250, and a rough doubling of winner's points in challengers and futures would have been so much more the way to go !

Or is that just too sensible ?

Drew · Jan 13, 2009

The ATP hits back...at Neil Harman !

The ATP chief Kris Dent has hit back at Neil and those of us who are baffled and/or mystified by the new rankings...

From the Net Post....

Kris Dent, the ATP's head of corporate communications, leapt swiftly into action after last week's first Net Post of 2009 cast doubt on the fairness and viability of the new ranking system on the men's tour and that it favoured those at the top end of the scale rather than the bottom. He suggested that I was the unfair one.

"The new system has been introduced after extensive research, consultation and modeling and is vastly simplified and much clearer," Dent said. "It ensures all level of fans can identify the relative importance of tournaments on the ATP World Tour by using a points system that immediately indicates the status of any given event. As you know, starting this year, the ATP World Tour Masters 1000 events will reward the winner with 1000 points, the 500 tournaments logically giving the champion 500 points and at the 250 events, 250 points. Grand Slams will award 2000 points to winners while the top level of Challenger events offer 125 points to their winners. It is a simple and progressive points system that has been developed after extensive fan research and in full consultation with players and other tennis stakeholders.

"You are right to point out that the points have been modified slightly within each tournament level. This was done to give the greatest reward to the tournament champion. In addition, the system has also been developed to be far easier to understand and follow - from the top level of Challenger tournament to the grand slams there are now only five levels, replacing as many as nine before.

"The main beneficiaries will rightly be tournament champions and modeling has shown that, apart from the positive ranking benefits to winners of tournaments, overall rankings will not be greatly different from past years and progression for emerging players onto the Tour will not be penalised. Players who do well at Challenger level will still progress onto the main Tour events, replacing those who do not do well at the 250 or 500 level events. Players moving up onto the Tour will also continue to benefit from being able to play schedules of their complete choosing, whereas higher ranked players will have to play 4 ATP World Tour 500s that count towards ranking." So now you know.

---------------------------

Two quotes stand out...

progression for emerging players onto the Tour will not be penalised.

Can the man not count !!!

progressive points system that has been developed after extensive fan research...

Anyone been involved ?

The ATP show their worry by responding to an online 'net post' in this fashion IMO.