Effects of points changes

Shhh · Challenger level

Effects of points changes

mjd · Challenger qualifying

New system of Ranking Points for 2009 - Here

If indeed total points for 2008 are to be doubled as starting points for 2009 -
As has been expressed elsewhere those players with points to defend early in the year will lose out, especially in Futures and Challengers as the value of the new points are nowhere near the value of the (doubled) points dropping off, even for those players matching results from 2008 - So in effect those players who won points later in 2008 will have the advantage of keeping their doubled points much longer!

For example $15k+ futures -
2008 points = rd32 0; rd16 1; QF 4; SF 8; LF 16; WF 24 (Original Points)
2008 points = rd32 0; rd16 2; QF 8; SF 16; LF 32; WF 48 (Doubled points)
2009 points = rd32 0; rd16 1; QF 4; SF 9; LF 19; WF 33 (New points)

Points deficit = rd32 0; rd16 1; QF 4; SF 7; LF 13; WF 15 (Doubled points - New points)

The only sensible and fair way would have been to recalculate 2008 points and apply the new system to generate 2009 points - but when has the ATP ever considered being sensible and fair!

with 2009 just days away it is still dificult to get clear info on these changes, the ATP does have a FAQ page HERE

-- Edited by mjd at 17:02, 2008-12-27

mjd · Challenger qualifying

Best analysis of this pending change that I have read HERE

part extract -
"In 2009, the ATP will be implementing a new points system. Unfortunately, this new points system is wholly unfair and could lead to the development of a tennistic equivalent of a caste system

What the ATP neglected in their new points scheme was giving the same increase to the challenger and futures players. "

mjd · Challenger qualifying

So now it is confirmed that the points have doubled - ATP GBR points

It is now clearer to see another effect of this - It will now be so much more difficult for lower ranked players to gain on those who have already achieved higher ranking, for an example -

The difference in points between Andy and Boggo WAS 3308 but is NOW 6616.
As the tournament awarded points are far from doubled it will take so many more wins to make any headway.
The 'same difference' applies all the way down the rankings to a lesser degree, giving those at the bottom a very difficult task indeed.
This leaves me wondering how those so called wise men at the ATP could have possibly believed this was fair to ALL players, my guess is that they were only looking at the top of the tree.

imoen · Admin: Moderator+Tennis Legend

I realise this is all terribly bad news for 2009 but I think it's important to remember that it will all sort itself out eventually (ie by the end of the year). I find it difficult to see what else could have been done at the beginning of this year: reassigning the 2008 points on the basis of the new ranking system is both unfair and impratical, as is leaving the points untouched.

Madeline · Admin:Moderator + Tennis Legend

imoen wrote:

I realise this is all terribly bad news for 2009 but I think it's important to remember that it will all sort itself out eventually (ie by the end of the year). I find it difficult to see what else could have been done at the beginning of this year: reassigning the 2008 points on the basis of the new ranking system is both unfair and impratical, as is leaving the points untouched.

They could have left the points system alone - it worked perfectly well as it was! They could have simplified the tournament structure without altering everything in sight.

steven · Tennis legend

I would have been more supportive if they had really bitten the bullet and come up with a completely new points system that attempted to take into account the actual strength of tournaments (as opposed to just the prize money available) and of individual opponents in order to remove some of the influence of the luck of the draw on ranking points, not that you could ever get close to removing it completely.

I would also have supported the (otherwise pointless) doubling of the points for winning the biggest events if they had used the chance that created to differentiate better lower down the scale, e.g. by awarding more points for reaching R2 in a 15K+H than for reaching R2 in a 10K, by awarding some points for winning matches in the bigger qualifying draws - it's incredibly unfair that someone can regularly win through three or four Futures qualifying rounds without getting any ranking points when someone not nearly as good can get a main draw WC, get drawn against an even weaker main draw WC and get a ranking point.

I understand that the kind of system I described in the first paragraph would appear more complicated and would give rise to problems of its own, but at least it would have meant they were attempting to make worthwhile changes instead of just doing a bit of tinkering.

Since they haven't done any of this, what I object to is them creating all this upheaval (and inequity between points carried over from 2008 and points that can be gained in 2009) just to tweak the system a little bit when, if we were always going to have a system that doesn't take into account tournament/opponent strength, the old one (as Madeline says) wasn't really too bad.

-- Edited by steven at 19:21, 2009-01-04

steven · Tennis legend

OEM makes a valiant attempt to convey the controversy surrounding the new ranking system to his readers in the Times today at http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/tennis/article5448559.ece

That's not easy to do without the space to give a few examples and I doubt it's going to leave many of those new to the story much the wiser (though it could act as a good prelude to a follow-up story about the effects it actually has when these become clearer later in the year) but it's impressive to see a national newspaper trying to tackle this difficult issue - I thought it was more than likely that none of them would be brave enough!

I do think there might be some unexpected effects of the new points system. A lot of focus has been put on the fact that points for Challengers and Futures have not gone up nearly as much as points for the slams and biggest ATP events, and that will (I think unfairly) boost the two week wonders of this world and the effect of lucky draws.

However, because the difference between points is only really important at adjacent levels (e.g. ATP early rounds v Challenger finals, Challenger early rounds v Futures finals), it might be the increase in differentials between rounds that distorts things the most.

e.g. For reaching the QF of a 50K Challenger, you used to get 13 points, 72% of what you would have got for winning a 15K Future. This season, you still get 13 points for reaching the QF of a 50K Challenger, which is only 52% of what you would get for winning a 15K Future.

For players capable of winning Futures titles (e.g. Evo), this means that there is now more incentive to carry on playing Futures instead of moving up to Challengers. Whether that's a good thing for the players in that position or not, I don't know (I think probably not), but if it encourages 'ringers' to stick around in Futures for longer than they really should do, that's going to reduce the points nd money available to the 'true' Futures players even more by leaving them to fight over the very slim pickings in the early rounds, which could be pretty demoralising for them.