British Tennis Forum - Celebrating 20 Years!

Stircrazy · Tennis legend

Arthur Fery

indiana · Tennis legend

christ wrote:
Without any disrespect to Mr Féry (or others before him) this demonstrates to me the imbalance in the scoring system. I am pleased that he is now WR36, but does anyone really believe that four matches make a world ranking?

-- Edited by christ on Monday 13th of July 2026 11:23:50 AM

From a Slam, yes. I like the different tournament rankings sliding scale and how it impacts on the rankings

JonH · Tennis legend

indiana wrote:
christ wrote:
Without any disrespect to Mr Féry (or others before him) this demonstrates to me the imbalance in the scoring system. I am pleased that he is now WR36, but does anyone really believe that four matches make a world ranking?

-- Edited by christ on Monday 13th of July 2026 11:23:50 AM
From a Slam, yes. I like the different tournament rankings sliding scale and how it impacts on the rankings

Agreed - I think big events should make big differences. Otherwise we would get a series of micro movements and that would not be exciting at all. The ranking system isn't just about an order to things - we would use ELO or UTR or something if that is all we wanted. A ranking system also rewards big achievements and is supposed to create movement, and opportunity. Have a big event and see yourself fly should be something everyone is able to aspire to.

Vacherot and Rinderknech got such a kick off Shanghai Masters last season, whether Vacherot will sustain that seems to be in question - but the kick he got rewarded that big week in a big event and was great to see.

I hope another Brit gets such a kick forward in the remaining Masters events or the USO.

Coup Droit · Tennis legend

christ wrote:
Without any disrespect to Mr Féry (or others before him) this demonstrates to me the imbalance in the scoring system. I am pleased that he is now WR36, but does anyone really believe that four matches make a world ranking?

-- Edited by christ on Monday 13th of July 2026 11:23:50 AM

I tend to agree

Although it's a question of balance

Yes, four Grand Slams wins should count for more than beating the same four players in challengers

But, no, Arthur is most definitely not a 'strong' wr 36

Four matches do not completely change your profile

However, Arthur was on the way up before so even if he now is a true WR 65, say, it's for hom to consolidate, and then prove the 36 is true

indiana · Tennis legend

JonH wrote:
indiana wrote:
christ wrote:
Without any disrespect to Mr Féry (or others before him) this demonstrates to me the imbalance in the scoring system. I am pleased that he is now WR36, but does anyone really believe that four matches make a world ranking?

-- Edited by christ on Monday 13th of July 2026 11:23:50 AM
From a Slam, yes. I like the different tournament rankings sliding scale and how it impacts on the rankings
Agreed - I think big events should make big differences. Otherwise we would get a series of micro movements and that would not be exciting at all. The ranking system isn't just about an order to things - we would use ELO or UTR or something if that is all we wanted. A ranking system also rewards big achievements and is supposed to create movement, and opportunity. Have a big event and see yourself fly should be something everyone is able to aspire to.
Vacherot and Rinderknech got such a kick off Shanghai Masters last season, whether Vacherot will sustain that seems to be in question - but the kick he got rewarded that big week in a big event and was great to see.
I hope another Brit gets such a kick forward in the remaining Masters events or the USO.

Out of interest, Jon, do the Tennis Abstract ELO rankings take any account of tournament level or is it purely to do with the ELO ranking of the player you beat or lose to? - whether it be in say Slam or Challenger 50? ( and if they don't take any such account, that is still very interesting to see ).

I think anyone (?) would agree that the official rankings should take the tournament level into consideration so to my mind as CD says, it is a question of balance and the best type of points scale.

One thing I would say is that while a few players may make huge gains from big runs in big tournaments, it has comparatively little effect on the rest who just shuffle down a few places based on those big risers that go past them.

While I see the argument that Arthur, with this one Slam run, is far from a proven top 40 player, I personally like the effect that such a run can have for any players and with that at least their short term opportunities re bigger tournnament entries. This time next year Arthur will drop these 800 points and we will see where is then. For now to him and anyone similar, well done and try to make the best of it all

As you say, something to aspire to as each Slam ( or indeed Masters ) comes round.

-- Edited by indiana on Tuesday 14th of July 2026 01:27:40 PM

JonH · Tennis legend

I agree with you Indy and, yes, the point that the person making the jump may get a big boost but the others just shuffle down is well made. In terms of optics and the wider public, big jumps and new names rising are news worthy. I wouldnt like it to be like golf, where the Majors are only just rated above all the other events and you end up seeing constant movement and names. And players making the top 10 in a golf field have relatively more points compared to the winner of the event than, say, a last 16 or QF player in tennis. I think the round by round balance which favours the players who win much more is better for the game.

Tennis Abstracts ELO rating doesn't take into account tournie level or round, it is purely the player you are up against. Which I don't think is right for a public facing ranking system that is about publicity as well as purely providing a list of 1 to 2000 or whatever it is. ELO is trying to do that a) in order to create the list of who is actually best, 20th best, 90th best etc over the 12 month period b) is also trying to feed the forecast of who is more likely to win should the players meet head to head on a given surface. I presume it feeds the betting markets who seem to end up with v similar odds, generally, to TA.

I think tennis has the scale right in terms of what it is trying to do - in golf, a major is maybe 20% bigger for the winner than a big PGA Tour event. In tennis it is twice as big and that, I think, is what the wider public would recognise and expect to see. It would be strange if a slam winner was only appearing at, say, 50th in the rankings, or 80th or whatever. Arthur might only just be in the top 100 if we awarded all events at say ATP500 level, and that would definitely be wrong, as we all seem to agree

Helen40 · Grand Slam Champion

I remember when Wozniaki was WR 1 and Serena was lower but had won slams. Serena almost laughed saying that she would prefer a slam rather than the WR1 ranking that was gotten through consistency at smaller tournaments, which is around the time they upped the slam points. I do think that runs like Arthur's make the news and give tennis a higher profile which IMHO is great, and part of that news is that he can now get into tournaments that he wouldn't have been able to.

The point about others shuffling down is interesting, it doesn't make a difference to players high up, but to ones on the edges of being able to get DE into a higher level tournament, then it could be a huge impact. With Arthur's run, I feel that he played well and won fair and square, but if others got there by other players withdrawing for example, it seems tough on the players now edged out of tournaments.

dodrade · Futures qualifying

Ultimately if he can't back it up his ranking will soon slip again, but hopefully he can now establish himself on the main tour.