good to see a nice solid win from Andy, although if he'd needed three sets I might have been back in time to watch some of it...he'll just have to keep winning so I can watch another day instead

As for the rankings question, most of this thread has gone completely over my head (even with the relevant ATP rulebook sections quoted) but I am now curious to see what happens come Monday morning and have enjoyed the ramblings - sorry, I mean reasoned arguments - of everyone on the topic.

imoen wrote:

As for the rankings question, most of this thread has gone completely over my head (even with the relevant ATP rulebook sections quoted) but I am now curious to see what happens come Monday morning and have enjoyed the ramblings - sorry, I mean reasoned arguments - of everyone on the topic.

---

I've looked at the rulebook, removed socks used calculator toes and fingers and am still totally at a loss.

Every time I re-read I come up with a different answer :(

I admit total lack of understanding and defeat .

Tonight at 6.30 UK time Andy plays Dominic Thiem, a 20 year-old Austrian ranked 113. I'm a bit wary of up-and-coming youngsters: since the ranking points change a few years ago it is more difficult for youngsters to break through, and I suspect he is underranked as regards ability. He played mostly Challengers last year, winning or getting to the finals of quite a few, but did well in ATP events towards the end of 2013. He has nothing to lose, so he can go flat out from the start - Andy will have to be wary, but I'll be surprised if he doesn't come through once he has worked out Thiem's game.

The Optimist wrote:

---

Are there more than 4 ATP500 events in a year?  If so, how do they decide which ones to put a zero against if a player gets to the end of a year having played less than 4?

---

They start adding in the zeros once they can't possibly reach four. The last three weeks of the year with 500 events are:

Week 31 - Washington

Week 40 - Beijing / Tokyo

Week 43 - Basel / Valencia

So that's why Washington, Tokyo and Basel are the three 0s on Andy's breakdown. Obviously, an earlier tournament can generate a zero-pointer if the player enters and then withdraws, thus getting a penalty zero.

Madeline wrote:

---

Sigh. Which makes it seem very unfair if Andy has to keep the 0s for 52 weeks, when it is possible that he will have played 4 500s this year and they won't count! (Yes, I know he is unlikely to play 4 500s before week 31 but theoretically. . .) 

---

Yes - I can see RJA's point on the previous page (and I agree with him that it's very unlikely Andy would have played four 500 events last year even if he had continued playing after the USO) but I think they should only have to carry zero-pointers from 500 series events for the full 52 weeks if they are actually withdrawal penalties and otherwise they should be allowed to replace the 0s based on the number of 500 events played in a rolling 12-month period. 

To be clear, I understand the reason for the "one 500 in the post-USO period" rule and I do think that penalties for late withdrawals should be carried for the full 52 weeks, but (assuming Washington was a late withdrawal) I still think it woul;d be fairest if he could replace one of the two post-USO zero-pointers once he has played in Rotterdam this week.

Not a great first set from Murray but he wins it 6-4