2014 WTA rankings tables

TomTraubert · Futures level

2014 WTA rankings tables

indiana · Tennis legend

Now, that does look a lot better !

Qualifying and reaching R2 in a GS is no longer equivalent to reaching R3 ( 60 + 100, 160 ). Now ( 30 + 70, 130 ).

The qualifying points for GSs and proportionately Premiers now has logical progression rather than in particular the infamous 40 points for winning Q1 in a GS. 2 / 40 / 50 / 60 has become 2 / 10 / 20 / 30. Could argue that it should be more progressive than linear, but I'll settle for that after what was there before.

10K and especially 15K points look much more sensible ( no great deal, but 2 rather than 1 for reaching R2 in a 15K would seem to sit better, but it was previously an especially ludicrous 15K spread ).

More emphasis on winning titles, relative to finalists and semi finalists.

Just generally, more logical looking step by step points through the rounds.

Took far too long, but yes, much better.

indiana · Tennis legend

Oops, new qualifying is 2 / 20 / 30 / 40 rather than 2 / 10 / 20 / 30 as I had wrongly thought.

Still Q + R2 less than R3 ( 110 vs 130 ), which is good, and I would ideally prefer qualifying points to be more progressive.

paulisi · Tennis legend

10k change is going to hit the likes of Dasha, Laura D etc in the rankings. Might need to review by top 20 for Women for 2014 now. #No cheap points

Sim · County player

indiana wrote:
Oops, new qualifying is 2 / 20 / 30 / 40 rather than 2 / 10 / 20 / 30 as I had wrongly thought.

Still Q + R2 less than R3 ( 110 vs 130 ), which is good, and I would ideally prefer qualifying points to be more progressive.

Still slightly strange points especially if you add the 10 points for losing in R1 so goes 2 / 20 / 30 / 40/ 110 upto R2 so why only 10 points for winning QR2 but 20 for winning QR1 and QR3?

Premiers is 2 / 20 / 40 / 65upto R2 which looks more logical

indiana · Tennis legend

Yes, I do think my wrong 10 / 20 / 30 or actually something like 10 / 20 / 40 would be better.

I suspect that there is still an element of the 20 points for winning Q1 in GSs being to encourage players to enter, but a realisation that 40 / 50 / 60 ( or other similar weighted ) was ridiculous. Taking everything together, I can live with that.

tony_orient · ATP qualifying

The rankings changes all make a lot of sense - not a major change but certainly irons out a few problems, such as the very high weight given to first rounds at big tournaments.

Qualifying for WTA events is also a bit more lucrative than in the past which will hopefully tempt the British girls in the 200-300 range to try and qualify instead of just playing ITFs.

RBBOT · Futures qualifying

Now if only the ATP could do something as sensible as this.