Cheers Steven - how ridiculous! I do think the points system is ridiculously preferential towards the top players, and makes it so hard for girls who have potential but either lack money or struggle to sustain a string of wins to progress quickly - which surely must put so many off when they could do well higher up the rankings.
I'm sure many top 100 players would still struggle to string together 5 wins to take a $25k on a regular basis - yet they get the same points for a single Premier win. And with so much competition at the bottom, I do think more points in the early rounds of 10/25ks would give us much more dynamic rankings which would allow players with talent to rise even when they're perhaps not as consistent as some of their opponents. But clearly there are lots of counter-arguments to that.
The ranking points system should reward players with increasing ranking points as the tournament progresses. i.e a second round victory should be worth more than a first round victory and so on. So therefore the players ranked 50-100 have more ranking points than their exploits deserve given that they will typically win one match at main tour level then get beaten in the next. As for 10k tournaments the ranking points are too low compared to 25k level. Take Naomi Broady who has performed very well at 10k level this year but whose current ranking does not reflect her true performances in the current year.