British Tennis Forum - Celebrating 20 Years!

Lambda wrote:

---

paulisi wrote:

---

Looks like we have loads of men in Aus qualis.

Only Jomo needs to find a couple more wins.

---

 

I dont think men are allowed to be potential GB women in Aus Open qualifying.

---

 Sadly the WTA still allow TiM into Women's tournaments

She can only count 18 tournaments, which include some mandatory 0's (Doha, Duai and Ningbo). Those 18 add up to 744. The other points are from additional tournaments which are non-counters.

https://openerarankings.com/WTAHome will give you the breakdown.

Jonny D wrote:

---

Hi,

Really sorry if this has been covered elsewhere, but why does Katie B only have 744 points in the official ranking? - adding up her points I get to 809. I checked on TennisTonic as I know they have a rankings breakdown and they have her on 809 as well so I'm v confused. It's like the 65 points she got at Indian Wells has been replaced by a 0 pointer. Did she lose them for some reason? 

On a similar note, Cameron's 1st round exit at Miami is shown as a drop-able score though I'm not sure why. i don't really understand why it's not a mandatory counter. Pleased if it is, as it will help him getting a seeding in Aus. 

Again apologies if this is old news and the answer has been written elsewhere and I'm sure there's a simple explanation that I'm just too blind to see

---

Yes, that's a very good OER link from TA. OER is my go to for rankings breakdowns and when points are due off.

Katie's WTA Ningbo 500 zero particularly came out of the blue, being added in for the same week as she won 30 R2 points from playing WTA 250 Osaka. I assume she hasn't fulfilled some sort of WTA 500s number of tournaments proviso?

Re Cam's non mandatory Miami, I have noticed many men players not having to count as mandatory what I would have previously thought of as being mandatory masters scores, and I have found it rather confusing. So yes, as an aside, does anyone have up-to-date info on how men's mandatory points work these days? At some stage it has definitely become less prescriptive.

-- Edited by indiana on Tuesday 4th of November 2025 05:29:50 PM

thanks Indy

so as far as I can make out, if she'd gone to Ningbo played 1 point and retired, she'd have 30 more ranking points .... lies, damn lies and tennis ranking systems!!!!

Which begs some interesting questions?

A tennis ranking system seems to me to have one primary role: to rank players in the right order from best to less best.

From there it has uses, ie entry and seedings.

And in doing so, it is a marketing tool for fans and so, for them, it should be fairly simple and easy to understand and be clear on how a players performance will impact their next or future ranking etc.

And it can be used as a stick to manage the tour and control players and where they play and how much.

Putting aside whether the list creates the right order (there are lots of ways of doing it and of weighting different events and rounds reached), my question is whether the systems used are simple enough to follow (for the average fan and player - I would say not) and do they therefore act against being a marketing tool. And are they too constraining and complex in terms of where players can play, in turn compromising their main role of creating a list of players in the right order?

Basically - reading the above comments, surely this is just all too complex a way of ranking players?! Mens and womens alike?

Re rankings in general, about the silliest to me is mandatory zeros for men's doubles.

No player, whatever their ranking, gets a mandatory zero for not playing a Slam or Masters, which in itself is fair enough because you don't have any mandatory partner. So Lloyd for instance missed this year's Rome Masters, hence doesn't have any Rome counter and counts 90 from another tournament instead.

Meanwhile Juilan does turn up with another partner ( so at least Rome had one of that top pair competing ), loses in R1, counts a mandatory zero, because hey-ho, it is a mandatory counter if you play it, and hence the poor soul is sitting 90 points behind Lloyd at individual WR 2.

Giving mandatory zeros ( though it has arguably become a bit more unnecessarily (?) complex, as Lambda describes ) makes some sense in singles for trying to be an incentive for the top ranked players to play them rather than get a zero for being missing. But makes no sense to me in doubles because you can just miss with no mandatory counter. Indeed it might theoretically help some to decide to miss masters events on their worst surface?

Always been a head scratcher for me, and this year it is directly impacting on Julian not being joint #1 ( though granted he would be sole #1 if he and his partner had got more than 90 points that Rome week )

-- Edited by indiana on Tuesday 4th of November 2025 06:54:58 PM

wolf wrote:

---

Makes sense to me. Stops people having to overplay into the off season just to make AO. I like it.

 

Edit: I like it more for main draw. If it's for qualifying as well then I'm not entirely sure it's necessary as there are events on for there sort of level through December anyway.

---

 Nobody is forced to over play in the off season, they choose to because they want to play in a GS. All that will happen is that Players probably ranked between 50 and 300 will play far more during the rest of the season, potentially leading to more injuries because they are playing every week.  The other issue is potentially there will be Players out injured for 2 to 3 months that now lose another few weeks to gain points.