Post #25 - conclusion to the rankings "experiment."
Hopefully this will be of interest to some (certainly to me), and a useful tool for further discussion on this issue.
What I have done is to convert the points under the old ranking system into the NEW ranking system
so we could observe the potential impact of these changes (notably, Federer would have finished 2008 ranked #3, for instance). NOTE - I have re-ranked the official 2008 year-end top 100...so, anyone finishing outside that list won't appear in this version (would be endless amounts of work...).
I don’t pretend to have a perfect vision of how the 2009 formula will work…there are several “rules” that need clarifying, such that if 5 of us were to compile a similar list, I think we’d all come up with a number of slightly different standings/points totals (although not so different that it would render this “experiment” meaningless).
Anyway, I have tried to mirror the 2009 formula as closely as possible, although, on the odd occasion, I have felt the need to deviate from it ever so slightly:
- I haven’t worked out World Team Cup
points…purely because I don’t know the breakdown. At any rate, I think it only counts as a possible “250” result, and, given that many of the participants had other solid “250” results over the 2008 season, I think the difference in a few points totals would have been minimal.
- I have made a few “intelligent” guesses as to requisite challenger
levels (e.g. $75,000)…again, any potential differences in points totals would be minimal (affecting only a few players within the top 55 anyway).
In trying to mirror the 2009 formula as closely as possible, I have:
- stuck to the “top 30
” rule…this is one of the “rules” that I’m not alone in thinking needs clarification, to the point that if a player who finished year-end top 30 became unable to make the cut for a Masters event in the following year, how could he include that particular result in his ranking? You will notice that Ljubicic is one of the players who would have taken a hit because of this new rule (I gave him 0 pts for Madrid and Paris).
- converted results across the new “250,” “500” and “1,000” points
levels. I took Monte Carlo out of the Masters “1000” bracket (under the new rules) and included it as a “500” result (where relevant), with a maximum 1000 pts on offer. Also, where a player won a lower-level event in 2008, which would have counted for more in 2009, I made the necessary adjustment (e.g. Almagro - Valencia). Also, I awarded “0 pointers” where a player would have failed to play the necessary number of equivalent “500” events, although I avoided the rule where one of the “500” events had to be played after the US Open.