Grand Slams should give more points - MensTennisForums.com
View Poll Results: Should GS events increase points?
Yes 12 21.43%
No 44 78.57%
Voters: 56. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
post #1 of 48 (permalink) Old 06-06-2011, 02:53 AM Thread Starter
Banned!
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Sen'jin Village
Age: 31
Posts: 18,509
                     
Grand Slams should give more points

Nadal has won 4/5 of the last slams and he is still dangerously close to losing #1 rank. I think slams should give more points and reward players who succeed on the big stage. I think giving 3000 points to a winner rather than 2000 is a lot more appropriate.

Thoughts?
Topspindoctor is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 48 (permalink) Old 06-06-2011, 02:59 AM
Registered User
 
guga2120's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 4,148
                     
Re: Grand Slams should give more points

No. You already get a 1000 more than winning a master series, which are huge. The problem is the schedule, not the way they assign points.
guga2120 is offline  
post #3 of 48 (permalink) Old 06-06-2011, 03:00 AM
Banned!
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 10,825
                     
Re: Grand Slams should give more points

Since it is a yearly ranking, what matter does it make to be holding 4/5 slams?
BigJohn is offline  
post #4 of 48 (permalink) Old 06-06-2011, 03:02 AM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 407
                     
Re: Grand Slams should give more points

No. Next question.

_________________________
"Familia del Tenis Chileno", thank you very much
_________________________
Gastón atendé el teléfono!!! VAMOS GASTON!
_________________________
Allez Fabrice!!
_________________________
Hail to the leftys - Nadal - Verdasco - Nieminen - Muller - Lopez - Koubek - Llodra - Melzer
krakenzero is offline  
post #5 of 48 (permalink) Old 06-06-2011, 03:18 AM
Registered User
 
Apophis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Valles Marineris, Mars
Posts: 1,328
                     
Re: Grand Slams should give more points

If you want to translate the value of slams into ranking points, you end up with something like 5000-10000 point per slam. Then you might as well base the rankings on slams only, because the rest is pretty much unimportant compared to slams in the end. But i prefer rankings based on the whole tour, so i think the factor 2 is ok.
Apophis is offline  
post #6 of 48 (permalink) Old 06-06-2011, 03:20 AM
Registered User
 
Snowwy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: A place that's too cold.
Posts: 23,013
                     
Re: Grand Slams should give more points

I think its good how it is.

Peter Polansky
Nestor - Chvojka - Pospisil - Raonic - Peliwo
Snowwy is offline  
post #7 of 48 (permalink) Old 06-06-2011, 03:25 AM
Registered User
 
Roddickominator's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Age: 31
Posts: 1,962
                     
Re: Grand Slams should give more points

Even though the clown that created this thread only thinks this is a good idea because it would benefit his hero, it's still a good idea. The Slams are what matter. Everybody wants to win these events....they bring their A-game and have to win best-of-five matches...of course there should be a huge amount of points that go to the players who perform well in these tournaments.
Roddickominator is offline  
post #8 of 48 (permalink) Old 06-06-2011, 03:28 AM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 1,550
                     
Re: Grand Slams should give more points

I actually think it would be a better idea to make the masters 750 points instead of the 1000 they are. 1000 points is a very high amount for a tournament with 3 sets.

Grand slams as a 2000 point event are good as they are. I dont see the need to change them.

FEDERER
KARLOVIC

RAONIC

AND ALL OTHER SERVEBOTS


SERVEBOTS ARE TENNIS
Satasonic is online now  
post #9 of 48 (permalink) Old 06-06-2011, 03:43 AM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 434
                     
Re: Grand Slams should give more points

I prefer the idea of a 2-year ranking system. It will not be as harsh on players who are out of action for a while due to injuries etc.

Quote:
Originally Posted by .-Federers_Mate-. View Post
Federer is a tennis god. Big john (Isner) was lucky to be a witness to what was on show today. Tough match vs Seppi next round
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seingeist View Post
The foaming-at-the-mouth blind fanboyism and double standards of these posts (F. mates) is so overwhelming that it strikes me as a self-parody.

"Tough match?" World #3 Federer's ("greatest player to have ever played the game," you just said before rushing off the bathroom to change your underwear) H2H against World #58 Seppi is 6-0.

If it wasn't tough, Federer's victory would not be as glorious and godlike! Naturally, if Seppi and Isner were in Nadal's side of the draw, any victory that he managed to scrape out against these Tough Titans of Tennis would be pure luck!
CCBH is offline  
post #10 of 48 (permalink) Old 06-06-2011, 03:50 AM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Age: 30
Posts: 13,802
                     
Re: Grand Slams should give more points

Let's say Masters were only worth 500 pts (finalist = 100) and Grand Slams were worth 3,000 pts (and finalists get 1,000). And for all intents and purposes, all other results get no points (and I'm not about to do a ranking system all the way to the 1st round, which consequently magnifies even more how much a slam title is worth):

Over the last 52-weeks

Nadal: 9,400 (3 slams + 4 Masters final)
Djokovic: 6,000 (1 slam + 1 slam final + 4 Masters)
Federer: 2,200 (1 slam final + 2 Masters wins + 2 Masters finals)

Hypothetical scenarios:

Nadal goes out in the semi-finals at Wimbledon, wins U.S. Open
*9,400 + (-3,000 + 0 Wimbledon) + (-3,000 + 3,000 U.S. Open) = 6,400
Djokovic makes the Wimbledon final & finalist at U.S. Open
*6,000 + (1,000 Wimbledon) + (-1,000 + 1,000 U.S. Open) = 7,000
Federer wins Wimbledon and finalist at the U.S. Open:
*2,200 + (3,000 Wimbledon) + (1,000 U.S. Open) = 6,200

Nadal will hold French & U.S. Open
Djokovic holds AO
Fed holds Wimbledon

1. Djokovic 7,000
2. Nadal 6,400
3. Federer 6,200

The huge huge ranking points for for slams hurt Nadal because he didn't at least make the Wimbledon final even though he holds 2 slams.

This will not work and people will still complain

Last edited by MIMIC; 06-06-2011 at 04:10 AM.
MIMIC is offline  
post #11 of 48 (permalink) Old 06-06-2011, 05:02 AM
Registered User
 
Midnight Ninja's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Bombay
Age: 28
Posts: 1,023
                     
Re: Grand Slams should give more points

On the flip side, isn't it unfair that somebody who has absolutely dominated the tour for the first six months is still not #1?
Midnight Ninja is offline  
post #12 of 48 (permalink) Old 06-06-2011, 05:06 AM Thread Starter
Banned!
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Sen'jin Village
Age: 31
Posts: 18,509
                     
Re: Grand Slams should give more points

Quote:
Originally Posted by Midnight Ninja View Post
On the flip side, isn't it unfair that somebody who has absolutely dominated the tour for the first six months is still not #1?
The game is about slams, though. Tournaments where players bring their best. 7 matches. Best of 5 sets. Someone who dominates slams should be solid #1. Nadal is currently not. His #1 spot is very weak even if he wins Wimby.
Topspindoctor is offline  
post #13 of 48 (permalink) Old 06-06-2011, 05:40 AM
Registered User
 
guga2120's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 4,148
                     
Re: Grand Slams should give more points

Quote:
Originally Posted by Topspindoctor View Post
The game is about slams, though. Tournaments where players bring their best. 7 matches. Best of 5 sets. Someone who dominates slams should be solid #1.
Tennis is not just about the slams. Master Series, Davis Cup, WTF, all very important.
guga2120 is offline  
post #14 of 48 (permalink) Old 06-06-2011, 05:42 AM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 1,041
                     
Re: Grand Slams should give more points

Quote:
Originally Posted by Midnight Ninja View Post
On the flip side, isn't it unfair that somebody who has absolutely dominated the tour for the first six months is still not #1?
Winning one major and some events may have guaranteed the number one ranking in the Hewitt/Roddick era; it doesn't apply to the current era though.

To put it in perspective, in 2008 Nadal won Monte Carlo then Hamburg then the French Open then Wimbledon… and was still ranked Number 2.
stewietennis is offline  
post #15 of 48 (permalink) Old 06-06-2011, 06:55 AM
Registered User
 
shiaben's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 5,039
                     
Re: Grand Slams should give more points

I think slams should be 3000 as well. Why is it that someone who wins a few masters all of a sudden has the worth of someone who has won a slam? (a tournament that consists of hard fought tennis in 7 long grueling matches that span for 2 weeks).
shiaben is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the MensTennisForums.com forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in









Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page



Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome