The 2009 ATP Point System's Fundamental Flaws and a Possible Solution [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

The 2009 ATP Point System's Fundamental Flaws and a Possible Solution

Johnny Groove
12-27-2008, 07:39 AM
Shameless self-promotion, I know, but this is an article I just published on the website I write for and I thought it would be very relevent to see MTF's opinion on it :wavey:

http://tennistalk.com/en/news/20081227/The_2009_ATP_Points_System%27s_fundamental_flaws

In 2009, the ATP will be implementing a new points system. Unfortunately, this new points system is wholly unfair and could lead to the development of a tennistic equivalent of a caste system

What the ATP neglected in their new points scheme was giving the same increase to the challenger and futures players. The lower-level tournaments and the players that participate in them will be unfairly cheated of points as well as prize money. The rich would get richer while the poor will either stay poor or get poorer. This will create a gap in the ranks between the top 100 or so, and the other 1000+ players that have rankings. All of the points for the Slams, Masters Events, 500 events (when compared to 300’s, the previous non Slam/Master tournament in terms of points), and 250 events (when compared to the lowest events from last year, the 175’s if you will) have been raised. The slams and masters series events have been doubled, giving the absolute best an ever bigger leg-up. As for the challengers and futures, there were some instances when comparing the old and new systems that the new system gave slightly more, but on the whole most either stayed the same or went down.

So the ATP level points have been raised substantially while the challenger and future points have been decreased. Not a good formula for a successful tour. Noticing these problems, I’ve developed a new points system. My new system, (with a few modifications of the old system) will much fairer in terms of easing up the ranks, and prize money awarded. The problem with many challenger and futures players is that they simply don’t have enough money to fly around the world and play in tournaments. By increasing challenger and especially futures prize money and points, the tour will become much easier financially for players playing them. It encourages more and more people to take up the game of tennis seeing as it is easier to break into and it is profitable. Sure, the ATP awards players good prize money, but Pete Sampras, the all-time leader in prize money, won 43 million across his entire career. This still does not hold a candle to the amount that players in other global sports make in even a single year. Tiger Woods earned over $100 million last year. Kimi Raikkonen hauled in 44 million just last year, more than Sampras had in his entire career.

So, in order to do this, I’ve decided to take the old ranking system, (which wasn’t bad at all, just needed a few tweaks) and make those few tweaks. What the ATP planned to do is double everyone’s 2008 points and use their 2009 scale to “even out” the rankings by the end of the year. This will lead to tons of confusion and unfair weighting. Their top 30 cut-off for many events, minimum event participation requirements, and other stupid rules further confuses even the most hardcore of fans. So, I will be keeping the 2000, 1000, 500, and 250 logos, but converting the points fairly so that if my 2009 points system was implemented on the current 2008 rankings, there would be little to no changes in anyone’s ranking and the transition would be virtually painless and barely noticeable.


ATP's 2009 Grand Slam points

W- 2000
F- 1200
SF- 720
QF- 360
R16- 180
R32- 90
R64- 45
R128- 10

Now in the slams, the winner’s points doubled, but the other 127 slam participants’ points did increase, but less than the champion’s. My new system for slams would be the following:

My Proposed 2009 Ranking System

W- 2000
F- 1400
SF- 900
QF- 500
R16- 300
R32- 150
R64- 70
R128- 10

Points for qualifying for the main draw- 50
Q3- 16
Q2- 8
Q1- 0

This way, everything is simply doubled. It’s easier to understand and is fair to all players who competed in slams.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As for the Masters Events:

W- 1000
F- 700
SF- 450
QF- 250
R16- 150

The above 5 rankings would be how it is for all the Masters Events. For the rest, it depends on if it is a 48 draw (Paris) a 56 draw (Shanghai, Monte Carlo, Rome, Madrid, Canada, Cincinnati) or a 96 draw (Indian Wells, Miami).

In a 48/56 draw (Paris, Shanghai, Monte Carlo, Rome, Madrid, Canada, Cincinnati)

R32- 70 (10 for a seed)
R48/56- 10
Points for qualifying for the main draw- 30
Q2- 16
Q1- 0

In a 96 draw (Indian Wells, Miami)

R32- 70
R64- 40 (10 for a seed)
R96- 10
Points for qualifying for the main draw- 10
Q2- 6
Q1- 0
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here is where it gets a bit tricky. For the 500’s, I will use the points from 2008’s ISG events. My 2009 points breakdown for 500’s events (Acapulco, Barcelona, Basel, Beijing, Dubai, Hamburg, Memphis, Rotterdam, Tokyo, Valencia, Washington) will be as follows:

W- 500
F- 300
SF- 220
QF- 120
R16- 50

Like the Masters Events, the 500’s also differ in point distribution depending on the size of the draw:

In a 32 draw (Acapulco, Basel, Beijing, Dubai, Memphis, Rotterdam, Tokyo, Valencia):

R32- 0
Points for qualifying for the main draw- 10
Q2- 0
Q1- 0

In a 48/56 draw (Hamburg, Washington, Barcelona)

R48/56- 0
Points for qualifying for the main draw- 10
Q2- 6
Q1- 0
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the 250’s, I took the points from 2008’s 175’s and adjusted them with the same ratio of increase for every round and rounded up to the nearest 5 when necessary.

W- 250
F- 170
SF- 110
QF- 60
R16- 25 (0 for a seed in a 28 draw tournament)
R28/32- 0
Points for qualifying for the main draw- 10
Q2- 0
Q1- 0
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here is where everything broke down. For the challengers, the current new system overall devalued the challengers in both points and prize money. For my new system, I would pretty much double challenger and futures points across the board, just as I did for the ATP level events. This keeps a level playing field and allows for players in the lower rungs to have a legit fighting chance of making the big time. The prize money should also be doubled.

300K+H

W- 200
F- 140
SF- 90
QF- 46
R16- 20
R32- 0
Points for qualifying for the main draw- 6
Q2- 0
Q1- 0

300K

W- 180
F- 126
SF- 80
QF- 42
R16- 18
R32- 0
Points for qualifying for the main draw- 6
Q2- 0
Q1- 0

250K

W- 160
F- 112
SF- 72
QF- 38
R16- 16
R32- 0
Points for qualifying for the main draw- 6
Q2- 0
Q1- 0

200K

W- 140
F- 98
SF- 62
QF- 32
R16- 14
R32- 0
Points for qualifying for the main draw- 6
Q2- 0
Q1- 0

150K

W- 120
F- 84
SF- 54
QF- 28
R16- 12
R32- 0
Points for qualifying for the main draw- 6
Q2- 0
Q1- 0

100K and 70K+H

W- 110
F- 76
SF- 48
QF- 26
R16- 10
R32- 0
Points for qualifying for the main draw- 6
Q2- 0
Q1- 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The futures tour is where just about everybody gets their start. By giving more points and prize money to futures players, it entices more people to give the futures tour a shot, knowing it will be worth their time and effort. This breeds more and more people wanting to play tennis. The tour will grow and grow.

To calculate the futures points, I simply doubled the 2008 points and prize money levels.

30K+H

W- 50
F- 32
SF- 16
QF- 8
R16- 2
R32- 0
Points for qualifying for the main draw- 4 (This feat deserves points)
Q2- 0
Q1- 0

30K

W- 36
F- 24
SF- 12
QF- 6
R16- 2
R32- 0
Points for qualifying for the main draw- 3
Q2- 0
Q1- 0

20K

W- 24
F- 16
SF- 8
QF- 4
R16- 2
R32- 0
Points for qualifying for the main draw- 3
Q2- 0
Q1- 0
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2009, the current new system will award points for Davis Cup for the first time in history. This is a terrible idea and another one that favors the higher ranked players. The points for Davis Cup would only be given for World Group participants. This gives players like Nieminen or Baghdatis, who both play for smaller countries in other various zonal groups to not be awarded Davis Cup points. The only reason points are given for Davis Cup is to entice the top players to play. The reason they don’t play is because the rest of the schedule is so cramped. If the Davis Cup is scheduled better, the participation by top players would be fantastic. I think 2009 has a fine Davis Cup schedule, but we will see.

As for the Masters Cup:

200 points for each Round Robin win
400 points for a SF win
500 points for a F win

This gives 1500 to an undefeated winner

As for the Olympics:

W- 800
F- 560
3rd- 410
4th- 310
QF- 200
R16- 100
R32- 50
R64- 10

Each player will take their 18 best results to calculate their rankings, and the rest of the rules are the same as in 2008 with a few changes:

1. 28 draw events are to be scrapped ASAP
2. The “four 500’s including one post-US Open” will be scrapped.

Overall, my system would be fair across the board from the World #1 to the World #1500 and would allow for a much healthier ATP.

Here is a table, for an easier visual

http://i103.photobucket.com/albums/m121/Blaze-2004/NewNewPointsBreakdown.jpg

:wavey:

jonathancrane
12-27-2008, 07:59 AM
Good effort

azza
12-27-2008, 08:16 AM
A+ for effort

duong
12-27-2008, 10:11 AM
I think it would be better and far more simple :rolleyes: than the new system but ... :sad:

Yet, imo, the challengers are not so much disavantadged comparing to the ATP-250 tournaments : both are downgraded (or GS and Masters Series and the IS-Gold with lowest prize-money are upgraded), the challengers just a little bit more than the ATP-250, but really little.

And I think that in the old system, the difference between the small ATP-tournaments and the challengers was too small then this very little evolution is justified imo.

As for the futures, I can't say anything as I don't follow them.

greatkingrat
12-27-2008, 11:32 AM
Your new system gives far too many points to challengers and futures.

Winning a future against players ranked 400-500 should not be worth more points than a QF in a 250 series where you beat top 100 players. This system would just encourage players to stay on the low-level tournaments and pick up lots of easy points.

Why play a small challenger for 110 pts when you can play a much easier future for 90 pts?

Johnny Groove
12-27-2008, 04:17 PM
Your new system gives far too many points to challengers and futures.

Winning a future against players ranked 400-500 should not be worth more points than a QF in a 250 series where you beat top 100 players. This system would just encourage players to stay on the low-level tournaments and pick up lots of easy points.

Why play a small challenger for 110 pts when you can play a much easier future for 90 pts?

You think? Maybe I gave the challenger and futures players too much :scratch:

Well, regardless, we're stuck with the ATP's plan. Hopefully it turns out better than we all expect it to.

«Ivan»
12-27-2008, 04:21 PM
i like it.

Johnny Groove
12-27-2008, 04:31 PM
Here's how the points would look if I just doubled the 2008 futures points. A win in the biggest future would be worth the same amount of points as reaching the 2nd round in a 500

http://i103.photobucket.com/albums/m121/Blaze-2004/NewNewPointsBreakdown.jpg

bjurra
12-27-2008, 04:42 PM
I didnt have the time to fully read your suggestion, nevertheless I am pretty certain it beats the current system...

GlennMirnyi
12-27-2008, 06:50 PM
This website must be awful to accept such writing.