Yes, big pity 

Really seemed to run away from James at the end there after he missed getting that second break.

Certainly a much better week for him but one can't help feeling it could have got even better with Ito beatable and other seeds having fallen.

And in time if he is to really rise up the rankings he will need to turn the pretty good weeks into really good weeks. 

But at least he is off and running for 2011.

-- Edited by indiana on Thursday 3rd of February 2011 02:14:29 AM

Well certainly reach at least Challenger semis and finals though winning say a Challenger title or two would really markedly help.

While James seemed to have had a pretty decent season last year and beat some good players, when you looked at his points scores over the year the only time he had got more than 29 ( from late season Loughborough Challenger semi final ) was when he reached the ATP QFs at Eastbourne earning 45 points.

Not stringing victories together and earning big points is what relatively held him back last year.

The women do have a generally more linear points award system round by round so yes I guess not quite as important to consistently get very deep and win titles.

-- Edited by indiana on Thursday 3rd of February 2011 01:20:16 PM

philwrig wrote:

---

What do you think is the better system Indy ?

---

It's interesting.  I do think the women's is too linear with the extra points gained for winning each subsequent round too low, but I actually think the men's maybe goes slightly too much the other way.  But I would definitely lean towards the men's.

Looking at a Men's 125K Challenger and Women's 75K ITF, both with 110 points for the title :

The men's points go from L32 to the title :   0,  9,  20,  40,  65, 110

The women's points go L32 to the title :     1,  14,  30,  50,  78,  110

The %'s for each round are very similar to the respective men's ATP 250 and the women's international points so it's a fair guide to the sort of trend of points you have for each sex.

Now in the above your reward for winning each round in turn is :

Men :   9,  11,  20,  25,  45

Women :  13,  16,  20,  28,  32

As I say the women's is just too linear for me.  In particular 28 for winning a semi followed by just another 32 for winning the final.  Considering the title is the ultimate, that to me is nonsense.

At the last significant points revamp for the men I am aware they did %wise up the ante for winners ( eg. Slam finalists used to be 70% of the winner, now just 60%). Maybe it's slightly more than I'd ideally have . The finalist in the above getting just 59% of the title winner points and 60% at the top level ( women above  71% )  and the semi finalist 36% ( women 45% ) may arguably be a bit low and does hugely reward the guy who has one great week ( maybe slightly lucky ).

But the more I consider it as I write this, I do still lean towards the men's point system.  To me, the women's just does not distinctly enough reward these who win later rounds.

And let's not even go to the Slam Qualifying points 

That did go on a bit ( not like me   ) but anyway that's how I see it.

As a final aside I know that at the top level the ( not disimilar ) points ratios have been much doubted with the various women's no 1s who have not won Slams ranked above Venus and more particularly Serena Williams.  While there is an element that yes their points system makes that more possible, a very large element here has been the schedules the Wiliams sisters have followed and their ( non ) performances outside the Slams.  It could still happen under the more title rewarding men's system but not so significantly.  So their no 1s don't indicate their points system is ridiculous but it would maybe help if it was more in line with the men's.