[FelikTen]

(first I've seen a story look beyond the winner's share of ranking points. Everything is NOT doubling for Slams and Masters Series, its only going to double for a title)

Radical changes to ATP rankings?
Tom Tebbutt, October 27, 2008 at 3:07 PM EDT


Some tennis fans have heard that ATP Tour officials have decided to rename the eight elite Masters Series tournaments (including the men's Rogers Cup) the "Masters 1000" events beginning in 2009.

To justify having the "1000" in the name, the number of ranking points awarded to the winner of Masters Series tournaments is being doubled from 500 to 1,000. In order to retain the ratio with Grand Slam winners points, those will also double - from 1,000 to 2,000 points. Everyone assumed this seemingly straightforward doubling of points would take place throughout the whole system, from the mega-bucks Grand Slams right down to the lowly, entry-level $10,000 Futures tournaments.

But that is not the case. While the winners of the Grand Slams and Masters Series events will receive twice as many points, after that there is a big drop-off. For example, the finalist at a Grand Slam this year received 700 points, which should be 1,400 if it was doubled. But the finalists next year will get 1,200, only an 85 per cent increase.

The percentages go down from there. A player who reaches the round of 16 will receive 200 points next year, just a 20 per cent increase over the 160 he got in 2008. Similarly, percentage gains are also lower in the ATP 500 and ATP 250 level events.

But the real scandal is in the minor leagues. Up-and-comers trying to climb the ladder in Challenger and Futures events will see big (de facto) decreases in the number of points available to them.

The winners of Challenger and Futures events will only see about a 20 per cent rise in points, while players losing in rounds before the final will, in a few cases, actually get fewer points than they received this year.

It is going to be much more difficult for players on the way up to reach the rankings needed to get into Grand Slams and Masters 1000s, especially when they have to try to dislodge players on the main tour who will be benefiting from significant "points inflation" in 2009.

It will make a big difference, especially to players ranked outside the top 100 or 150. And it is amazing that these changes have gotten so far without much comment from the general membership of the ATP. The ATP's computer rankings, introduced in 1973, are the very foundation for the men's game and determine entry to tournaments and the seedings once players are in the events.

Most players, still busy trying to finish this season on a good note, appear not to have looked closely enough at the ranking points table for next year to really understand the significance of the redistribution.

Even Roger Federer, who keeps up with the tour's politics and is the new president of the ATP Players Council, isn't that familiar with the points overhaul. Responding to a question from Match Tough (through a Swiss journalist last week in Basel) about the redistribution at the Grand Slam and Masters Series level, he commented, "To be honest, I have heard about it, but I have not studied it. I guess it won't make a big difference."


Full story: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servl...Story/WBTennis

[HawksBurnDown]

Not make much of a difference? If it were applied to the WTA, Kuznetsova might not be top 15.

[FelikTen]

Lets see how well this copies. This is a comparison chart for 2008 vs. 2009 ranking points. Courtesy of the link in the above post

GRAND SLAM (Masters 1000s are exactly the same, but divided by two)

Increase: (100%) (71%) (60%) (44 %) (33%)
2009: W (2000) F (1200) SF (720) QF (360) 16 (200)
2008: W (1000) F (700) SF (450) QF (250) 16 (150)


ATP 500

Increase: (66%) (42%) (33%) (20%) (80%)
2009 W (500) F (300) SF (180) QF (90) 16 (45)
2008 W (300) F (210) SF (135) QF (75) 16 (25)

$125,000 CHALLENGER

Increase: (25%) ( 7%) (-3%) (-5%) (-33%)
2009 W (100) F (60) SF (35) QF (18) 16 (6)
2008 W (80) F (56) SF (36) QF (19) 16 (8)

$50,000 CHALLENGER

Increase: (50%) (28 %) (22 %) (25%) (0%)
2009 W (75) F (45) SF (27) QF (15) 16 (5)
2008 W (50) F (35) SF (22) QF (12) 16 (5)

$15,000 FUTURES
Increase: (28%) (16%) (16%) (0%) (0%)
2009 W (25) F (14) SF (7) QF (3) 16 (1)
2008 W (18) F (12) SF (6) QF (3) 16 (1)

[Spisivavona]

They know they have unlimited points to give out, right? It's not like oil, where you have limited resources. This is really sad for the lower-ranked guys

[Gastonleruanich]

Not make much of a difference? If it were applied to the WTA, Kuznetsova might not be top 15.

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.

[EnvellFen]

Not make much of a difference? If it were applied to the WTA, Kuznetsova might not be top 15.

I had that same thought immediatly, it puts a huge onus on winning tournaments. It's going to be so hard for some of these guys to break onto the tour. Or somebody trying to come back from an large injury, unless they can get a wild card it is going to take someone a long time to work there way back.

[FelikTen]

They know they have unlimited points to give out, right? It's not like oil, where you have limited resources. This is really sad for the lower-ranked guys

You can see players like Kohlschreiber, Simon, even Monfils, who, while clearly talented, took a few years for their gifts to be realized, being hurt badly by this system also. If you don't get hot by your early 20s, it is going to be inreasingly difficult to make a dent in the rankings.

[Spisivavona]

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.

You know that if they increase the value of winning Wimbledon, they have to do so for the other three slams, too, right?

[Mr_White]

The rich get richer, the poor have to play more and more Challengers and futures.

[EnvellFen]

wow some of those challengers are losing points from this year to next. how will they adjust the players points from this year, or are they?

[HawksBurnDown]

The rich get richer, the poor have to play more and more Challengers and futures.

Michael Russell will be crushed.

[Gastonleruanich]

You know that if they increase the value of winning Wimbledon, they have to do so for the other three slams, too, right?

Why? The WTA is just a few small steps below a dictator state.

Seriously, the WTA grossly undervalues the majors.

The best, most talented ATP players will find a way to navigate this. I don't know that we want a ranking structure that's designed for the Zuzana Ondraskovas of the ATP.

That being said, this does seem to go a bit too far in the opposite direction.

Where do the Umags of the the world fit into this type of structure?

[Spisivavona]

You can see players like Kohlschreiber, Simon, even Monfils, who, while clearly talented, took a few years for their gifts to be realized, being hurt badly by this system also. If you don't get hot by your early 20s, it is going to be inreasingly difficult to make a dent in the rankings.

Yeah, them, too, but I'm actually thinking of the outside top 150 players who are working hard trying to make a living and maybe catch that big break. Someone who can consistently go deep in challengers but doesn't win many may never get a chance to play an ATP tournament, earn some money, be able to afford a coach or to travel with his family, or beat that big name.

[FelikTen]

wow some of those challengers are losing points from this year to next. how will they adjust the players points from this year, or are they?

Ilia Bozoljac will never crack the Top 100 now

[Spisivavona]

Why? The WTA is just a few small steps below a dictator state.

Seriously, the WTA grossly undervalues the majors.

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

[FelikTen]

Where do the Umags of the the world fit into this type of structure?

Umag's a 250 Dry. Probably (though obviously I am not certain) 1/2 the points of an ATP 500.

One of the things I do like is that it should be easier to follow ranking points. Everything is a Slam, a Masters 1000, a 500 or a 250.

Here's the 2009 calendar, which spells out what each event is.

http://www.atptennis.com/en/common/T...ar/2009atp.pdf

[FelikTen]

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.

[Gastonleruanich]

Umag's a 250 Dry. Probably (though obviously I am not certain) 1/2 the points of an ATP 500.

One of the things I do like is that it should be easier to follow ranking points. Everything is a Slam, a Masters 1000, a 500 or a 250.

Here's the 2009 calendar, which spells out what each event is.

http://www.atptennis.com/en/common/T...ar/2009atp.pdf

So under this structure, winning Umag would get you 50 more points than making the R16 at a major.

I don't know. That seems equitable to me. But I'm worried about the guys below the fringe, too. Under this structure, it makes me wonder if there even will be a challenger or futures tour 5 years from now. Or at least a significantly pared down version.... Or if you play Bratislava, it will only have players from within a 100-200 mile radius.

[DoterForeva]

Ilia Bozoljac will never crack the Top 100 now

I had officially stopped holding my breath for him anyway.

[FelikTen]

I had officially stopped holding my breath for him anyway.

He got as close as you can get without getting it.

I wonder how many players in ATP/WTA history got to 101, but not 100. That's gotta hurt when your grandkids ask about your career.