Yes!

QR1:  Jamie Delgado & Gilles Müller (LUX) CR 381 (218+163) defeated (q2) Frank Moser & Alexander Satschko (GER/GER) CR 111 (125+86) by 4-6 7-5 [10-8]

FQR: (q5) Rajeev Ram (USA) d. (q1) James Ward 6-2 4-1 ret

I hope this doesn't derail his run towards the top 100 - I seem to remember him getting hit by a late summer injury the last time he seemed to be on his way.

Of course, he might just be sick or something, and not injured as such ?

In general, I like the points system, even if most people would have their preferred tweeks and challenger qualifying does seem to be an issue ( though can vary from very hard to a relative dawdle ).

Of course, you will have anomalies in how easily or otherwise points are won. That really is pretty inevitable unless you go down the road of awarding points on the basis of the opponents players win and lose to, a sort of Akhenaten ( poster on here who had such a basis ) system. Now that is interesting and revealing, but I would imagine most of us would hate it as a true ranking system with the lack of clarity.

The general ATP points system is very clear, even further improved for marketing and clarity when they moved to ATP 250, 500 and 1000s ( if yes I know there are further anomalies such as Queens while it was an ATP 250 ). It is clear for the fans who like to follow rankings and it is clear to the players, who are free to make their own choices as to what tournaments they enter ( and often the "unlucky" is more poor scheduling, certainly if they were looking for ranking points ) Challengers and futures, while not having such memorable points systems are still clear and as I say players can make their choices, and some seem to make better choices than others.

Could the points system be improved ? - probably yes, although different folk will have different ideas. Is it ludicrous ? - certainly not IMO.

It essentially does what it's there for and ultimately players find their level.

The only details I can find are that James retired with a right knee problem.

R1:  Jamie Murray & John Peers (AUS) CR 63 (31+32) defeated Steve Johnson & Jack Sock (USA/USA) CR 95 (80+15) by 6-3 5-7 [10-7]