No, not for me, don't mess with the rankings system. I don't know how one would decide on a junior coefficient anyway - the junior rankings ? - they themselves can certainly be taken with a pinch of salt in many instances with such varying cicumstances.

Top juniors and college players will make their way up the senior rankings, and quickly if they are really good, once they concentrate on seniors. If before then you draw such a supposedly very underranked player it's the luck of the draw and there are plenty other underranked players due to other circumstances like coming back from injury or maybe even great on a particular surface, who are arguably better than seeded players.

The rankings system certainly isn't a perfect ordering of players, but essentialy does what it's there for and is easily understood. And I personally would also much prefer it as it is to say something based on or adjusted for the rankings of who you beat and who you lost to.

Mitchell had a great run in the middle of last year but hasn't done anything since then - losing in the quarters of a futures, the first round of challenger qualifiyng two times, first Q round at the US open, and the final round of qualifier challenging once.

Kozlov's results sheet looks a lot better (bit of a specialist in tight three-setters!), especially his run to the final in Sacramento. Lost to Gabb back in July though ::))

I don't like the games won approach. It's not what tennis is about. Also, although you could argue that for the 'losing' player, it makes them fight harder to try and win a couple of extra games, to get a few more points, it can also send the wrong message to the stronger player - often a junior coach will tell a youngster who is a fair bit stronger to go out and try new things, to use the match as a practice match for new plans of play - it doesn't seem right that they should be penalised.

I agree the games won approach potentially incentivises the wrong type of approach particularly in development. If there are any aspirations to encourage larger attendances at ITF and challenger tournaments it is important to make the draw as representative of current form as possible. I wouldn't suggest playing with the whole rankings system which would determine the likelihood of acceptance for MD or qualifying, WC already allow adequate flexibility.

But, I would suggest applying the coefficient to seeding in both.

That way you have a balanced draw this one is so top heavy, with the college stand out, Recent UCLA alum (and key player in their best team for a decade before going pro early) and no1 seed, teenage prodigy likely to knock each other out before the final. It's in LA where the UCLA student body and American public come out to watch college sport at the drop of a hat.

It was interesting to see the thread for best futures to go to to watch, is theire a place for a scoring system for 2015. As a serious consumer of top shelf newsagent literature I have to confess to being a fan of the non league football papers ground hopper column, (the anonymous contributor is also a keen ornithologist)he scores Fixtures from conference to South Eastern counties out of 5 on the quality of the program, pies, welcome, bar and er also the game.

Yes definitely tennis tournaments. The respondents in the "best ITF to go to " thread probably generated the domains for assessment spontaneously in their responses, the quality of grub/canteen was also alluded to although disappointingly not pie specific.

R1:  (WC) Connor Farren & Eric James Johnson UNR vs Josh Milton & Alex Ward UNR

The top seeds are James Cluskey & Freddie Nielsen, CR 303.