ATP World Tour 500 Ranking Point nonsense

indiana · Tennis legend

ATP World Tour 500 Ranking Point nonsense

steven · Tennis legend

I didn't realise they'd done this until ASE brought it up on AM.com this morning (with, independently, much the same comments as were made in the previous post) - I didn't even bother to check since I was sure that even if they fudged it, they wouldn't phase it in quite this stupidly. I think what Indiana was expecting, or perhaps having to count at least one when 1/4 of the 500s this year had taken place (or by the end of the tirst quarter of the year) would have been fair enough, but not this.

I wonder how many players didn't realise this was going to happen and are now wishing they had skewed their 500 entries more towards the end of the year.

It might be the thing that finally triggers some protest from the players about the botched transition - of course, we don't know what discussions may have gone on behind the scenes, but my hunch was that most players whould keep their heads in the sand about it until some of them started to be adversely affected in ways that were demonstrably unfair.

-- Edited by steven at 11:58, 2009-02-17

indiana · Tennis legend

Rearrange these words :

organise the up ATP a brewery in a couldn't piss

The Hoose · Satellite level

a brewery couldn't a piss in the atp organise up

Madeline · Admin:Moderator + Tennis Legend

Well, the whole thing is crazy isn't it? Quite apart from this problem, players being totally unable to defend points from last year (as in Andy at Doha, 200 points last year doubled to 400, but only able to earn 250 from this year's tournament even though he won it again!). 2009 is going to be a complete shambles until it is nearly finished.

Drew · Feb 17, 2009

This does not make sense ?

> organise the up ATP a brewery in a couldn't piss

Correct = The ATP couldn't organise a piss up in a brewery

That is much clearer....are you all on dope* or something ?

*The same substance the new rankings creator takes in their tea

ForeverDelayed · Grand Slam Champion

I feel sorry for Igor Andreev to be honest.... having lost in round 1 of Rotterdam last week, and Memphis this week, if he loses in round 1 of Dubai next week (which is perfectly possible given his form and strength of the draw), he'll have 3 zero's in his ranking already!!!

When talking about the ATP rankings, you have to think illogically to start with in order to understand what they are supposed to be doing.

I suppose at the end of year it is all going to equal out and make sense again, but that doesn't take into account the fact that someone could miss out on making the cut/being seeded for an event because of them playing the first 4 500 events of the season rather than the last 4, which doesn't seem fair.

indiana · Tennis legend

Does anyomne actually know where we might officially find out and read how the new points are meant to be phased in over the year ????

I mean it could be quite fun waiting each week on a Monday to see what happens now. We could have guess folks' points competitions ! But it would be nice to know in advance what's meant to happen.

Surely surely surely someone like Andreev competing in the first 3 ATP 500 tournaments wouldn't have to count the points ( or more non points ! ) from all three of those immedaitely ??

Yes, I know, I couldn't believe it even for one immediately and...

Yes, there had to be a bit of a flux in the transition year, but it is absolutely clear to me that it could be phased in better and fairer than the ATP appear to be doing it

What sort of brains work for that organisation ??!

ForeverDelayed · Grand Slam Champion

^^^

We'll find out on Monday whether they are counting them when you play them (which I suspect they will) when Andreev's points are updated with what probably will be a second zero.

But then... this ranking system is an Mr.Disney idea, so it is bound to not make any sense, especially to the 'casual' fans that this was supposed to help.

If us dedicated fans don't really get the ranking system, what hope to they have!!!

steven · Tennis legend

To some extent you have to feel some sympathy for the people trying to implement the ranking system, given that it was designed at the top by the marketing men and the statisticians (ok, that might be a bit of an exaggeration, no self-respecting statistician could implement even as fundamentally flawed as system as this quite so badly) were probably then dropped in it and totld to sort out the 'details'.

I've been wondering too if maybe you only have to count one 500 by the end of the first quarter, two by the end of the second and so on, and it's just easier to do that when the first 500 in each quarter goes on than to only force a 500 to be counted for each player at the end of the first quarter.

It'll be interesting to see what happens next Monday anyway, like FD (and on the basis that if there are three options, the one that is obviously the least fair will be the chosen one (*)), I suspect that Andreev will get a second zero immediately.

(*) e.g. back in October, I said on AM.com that I could see four ways they could deal with Challengers and Futures.

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

I said at the time that my money was on 4), but they actually implemented a cross between 4) and 2) (the "that would be a complete farce" option)

Madeline · Admin:Moderator + Tennis Legend

I keep a rankings spreadsheet; if it were possible to keep a computer spreadsheet "in pencil" I would! Basically at the moment I am just guessing what they will do and putting it right when the new rankings come out.

And how we are ever supposed to know when somebody that is injured has to count a zero for withdrawal until the new rankings actually tell us I don't know. But then that is what was happening last year for zero pointers I suppose.

mjd · Challenger qualifying

Slightly Off topic I know but I see that ATP have removed reference to 'Stanford' as sponsors to the doubles tour. It is simply now 'ATP World Tour Doubles Rankings'

goldfish · Futures qualifying

Igor Andreev does indeed have 2 zeros in his ranking points this week.

johnnylad · Tennis legend

Luckily he just thrashed Rik De Voest in Dubai

steven · Tennis legend

Update:

Despite it being less than 1/3 of the way through the year and the fact that one of the four 500s is supposed to come from a post-USO event, poor old Igor is now being forced to count four 500s (including pseudo-500 Monte Carlo) in his ranking with 90 (Dubai), 10 (MC), 0 (Memphis) and 0 (Rotterdam) points, total 100, with the result that he can't count a 240, a 120 and two 100s, total 560!

It's a hard life when you're an unfashionable Russian ...