I think we need to change ranking system:
1. In the Masters events such like Rome or Toronto. We have ranking points table for 96 players we need to this to 64 or even 56.
2. Rise the points of small tournaments from 200 to 250.
3. If someone doesn't play for 6 months we (PAW board or rank manager) will send pms with question is he/she playing or not. If not he will be eliminated from the ranks.
1. The nine TMS tournaments have always had PAW ranking points distribution for 96 players. When PAW was more popular, we regularly saw 90+ players in the TMS tournaments but there was a gradual drop off in numbers last year from 81 players at Indian Wells down to 68 players at Paris. Assuming there are similar numbers of players in PAW this year, if we drop down to 64 players points distribution, then it will mean that players at the bottom of the leaderboards will not score any PAW ranking points. I think this would be unfair to not score any ranking points because the nine TMS tournaments are mandatory in the PAW Entry and Race rankings. Even with the current 96 distribution, you only get 15 points for 64th place dropping down to 1 point for 96th place, so we are not talking about huge numbers of ranking points here. For this reason, I think it is better to stick with the current points distribution for TMS tournaments.
2. The points awarded in PAW for the title winners have always tried to reflect (as closely as possible) the real points awarded in the ATP rankings system. e.g.
Grand Slams, ATP=2000 PAW=1000
TMS, ATP=1000 PAW=500
ATP500, ATP=500 PAW=300
ATP250, ATP=250 PAW=200
In weeks where there is an ATP500 and an ATP250 tournament, there will normally be >30% more players at the ATP500 because the PAW players are chasing the bigger points. If we increase the winners points for the ATP250 tournaments, then we start to de-value the ATP500 tournaments. Similarly, if we then increase the winners points for the ATP500 tournaments then we start to de-value the TMS tournaments - where do we stop. Therefore I am not in favour of changing the ranking points for the smaller tournaments.
3. Obviously at the moment, a player automatically drops out of the PAW rankings if they do not play PAW for one full year - I assume that the PAW Entry rankings spreadsheet will highlight when a player falls out of the rankings after one year absence. If we look to remove players from the rankings after a six months absence, then I guess it could create unnecessary extra work for hallso to have to notify the PAW Board of this fact. Once again, I don't see any real need to change the current PAW rankings system, but maybe hallso would be a better person to comment on this.