[Spisivavona]

Up to early 2006, Gilles Simon was below the top 120. Now he's #10 in the world, and #8 in the Race. Good chance under this system he might never had done that in 3 seasons.

Even worse...how about Neps? 171 in January of this year, now 53. Guaranteed he would not have risen 120 ranking spots in one season with this in place.

I'm not certain how I feel about it yet. But I'm leaning toward not liking it. It invites good, but not top players, to tier down to chase points, rather than play the big events, I think.

You make an excellent argument for the new points system

[VQdeochratis]

Despite Jack´s campaign, I´m absolutely fine with the current state of WTA rankings.

Actually I don't have an issue with the WTA's points relativity between Slams vs. non-Slams. I just think every match a WTA player plays in should be counted towards their ranking.

Radical, huh?

[Spisivavona]

Actually I don't have an issue with the WTA's points relativity between Slams vs. non-Slams. I just think every match a WTA player plays in should be counted towards their ranking.

Radical, huh?

But not every ATP match should count?

[Rjvpicux]

How will tennis be improved by this new system?

[VQdeochratis]

But not every ATP match should count?

No, I'd make the same changes for the men. The ranking systems should be the same IMO.

[SHpuntik]

Michael Russell will be crushed.

LOL. Personally, I'm ok with this. It eliminates all the Kevin Anderson's of the world. I have always thought it was weird that you could crack the Top 100 of the ATP tour without ever having played an ATP event.

[johnteriz]

The WTA ranking structure is a hot mess. Major titles are grossly undervalued. I'd like to see them do something more like this. Though maybe this is too drastic in the opposite direction. Or maybe not. I'm not sure yet.

I'm not sure what you're seeing, or I'm missing. Both tours award 1000 points for a major. The WTA awards 430-500 for winning a Tier I tourney. The ATP awards 500 for winning a Masters Series event. Points for runner-up, semis, quarters are all fairly similarly distributed. For the majors:
ATP--1000/700/450/250/150/75/35/5
WTA--1000/700/450/250/140/90/60/2

Up to early 2006, Gilles Simon was below the top 120. Now he's #10 in the world, and #8 in the Race. Good chance under this system he might never had done that in 3 seasons.

Even worse...how about Neps? 171 in January of this year, now 53. Guaranteed he would not have risen 120 ranking spots in one season with this in place.

I'm not certain how I feel about it yet. But I'm leaning toward not liking it. It invites good, but not top players, to tier down to chase points, rather than play the big events, I think.

Neps? What's a Neps?

It will be interesting as this change bubbles through the rankings week by week. For instance, suppose a 2009 tournament has the exact same results as the 2008 version. Players well get double the points, for the exact same performance. There will be some odd rankings changes, as each tournament goes on.

[FelikTen]

Neps? What's a Neps?

See what happens when we let foreigners in

It will be interesting as this change bubbles through the rankings week by week. For instance, suppose a 2009 tournament has the exact same results as the 2008 version. Players well get double the points, for the exact same performance. There will be some odd rankings changes, as each tournament goes on.

Martini, remember when the WTA eliminated Quality points a couple of years back? They adjusted them for the entire year before the season started, rather than let them come off by the week. It resulted in some ranking adjustment, if I recall correctly. I haven't read it yet, but I am wondering if the ATP will adjust everything before the start of the season, or let things progress weekly?

[VQdeochratis]

Neps? What's a Neps?

It will be interesting as this change bubbles through the rankings week by week. For instance, suppose a 2009 tournament has the exact same results as the 2008 version. Players well get double the points, for the exact same performance. There will be some odd rankings changes, as each tournament goes on.

Neps = Ginepri

The strange thing about it is that the ATP aren't recalibrating players rankings based on this new points structure at the beginning of the year. So after the Australian, you'll have
Aussie Winner = 2000/US Open Winner = 1000
Aussie RU = 1200/US Open RU = 700

If they were doubling points across the board for all rounds, it wouldn't matter. But because they aren't it will artificially inflate players 2008 points, relatively speaking. So for almost the entire year, the rankings will be a mess.

[ZesePreodaNed]

Neps = Ginepri

The strange thing about it is that the ATP aren't recalibrating players rankings based on this new points structure at the beginning of the year.

So after the Australian, you'll have
Aussie Winner = 2000/US Open Winner = 1000
Aussie RU = 1200/US Open RU = 700

If they were doubling points across the board for all rounds, it wouldn't matter. But because they aren't it will artificially inflate players 2008 points, relatively speaking. So for almost the entire year, the rankings will be a mess.

I don't think that's right. As I understand it all this year's points will be doubled, but the points distribution system will not be the same and after AO we will have:

AO winner 2000/USO winner 2000
AO RU 1200/USO RU 1400