Prorated points allocating system for the tourneys [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Prorated points allocating system for the tourneys

w78dexon_y
05-18-2009, 09:04 PM
Current system of points allocation should be improved to better reflect players effort and award the points respective of who they beat.

For example: if somebody beats Fish in a GS final shouldn't be awarded as the same amount of points as the one who beats Nadal in the other GS final.

So, here's the proposal that would award the winner more appropriate to their tournament succes:

I am in favour of prorated award system, based on the players ranking position and the tournament award rate of the player.

Every time one wins the match he should got his opponent's tournament award points. The one who wins the tournament (beside the points he got from his opponent) he will retain his own tournament award points.

For instance: if there are 5 players in a tourney and their total ATP ranking points is 2500 and the total amount of tourney award points is 1000.

example:

player A: 1,000 Ranking points
Player B: 700
Player C: 500
Player D: 200
Player E: 100
_____________________
TOTAL: 2,500 Ranking points


Then divide the total amount of points of that turnament (1,000) by the total of player's ranking points (2,500) and get the tournamnet rate of 0.4 (1,000 : 2,500 = 0.4)

That's the rate of the tournament points award. So, now every players ranking points miltiply by the tournament rate (0.4) gives a number of points that reflects that particular player value.

Player A has ....400 points tourney award (0.4 x 1,000)
Player B has ....280 points tourney award (0.4 x 700)
Player C has ....200 points tourney award (0.4 x 500)
Player D has .....80 points tourney award (0.4 x 200)
Player E has .....40 points tourney award (0.4 x 100)
_____________________
TOTAL:..........1000 points


Every time one wins he got his opponent's tournament award points. The one who wins the tournament (beside the points he got from his opponent) he can retain his own points.

Now, if player E beats Player A, he got his tourney award points, which is 400!

If in the next round player E lost to player B, thus Player B gets 40 points! And so on till the final.

If player B wins the tourney by beating player C in the final, he got 480 points (200 + 280). So, the only winner gets both, his opponent's and his own award points.

This would truly reflect the tottal effort made by some player on a particular tourney, plus possible luck in the draw would be minimized..

This would avoid to equilize the matches. Not all s/f mathces are worthy the same effort. Nor finals.

For instance,
- If one beats Murray in MS semi and the other one beats Soderling in the other semi they cannot be rewarded the same amount of points. (with all respect to Soderling).

Please discuss.

HeretiC
05-18-2009, 09:20 PM
http://incarna.andablog.com/2007/09/27/shut_the_fuck_up.jpg

Arkulari
05-18-2009, 09:22 PM
http://i334.photobucket.com/albums/m424/controlfunction/catwatermelon.jpg

Joao
05-18-2009, 09:23 PM
I've always been a fan of quality points. I think it was a big mistake when the WTA eliminated them, 2 years ago.

But didn't the ATP have a system with quality points decades ago ... I could be wrong though.

Certinfy
05-18-2009, 09:42 PM
It's a good idea, but i think it will get to complicated for fans.

scarecrows
05-18-2009, 09:57 PM
But didn't the ATP have a system with quality points decades ago ... I could be wrong though.

yeah, i remember vaguely smth like that
like extra points when beating top 10 players or smth like that

Manon
05-18-2009, 10:05 PM
yeah, i remember vaguely smth like that
like extra points when beating top 10 players or smth like that

Midd '90-es and earlier.

fast_clay
05-18-2009, 10:12 PM
yeah i think you got 50 points for beating the #1 back in 90's... if you were ranked a fair way down...

i am however, more impressed with that cat rolling the sh!t of that melon... did this photograph win any awards...?

HeretiC
05-18-2009, 10:15 PM
It's a good idea, but i think it will get to complicated for fans.

No, it is not and it never was... The same player does not "worth" the same on diferrent surfaces and his current ranking does not reflect his current form.

El Legenda
05-18-2009, 10:23 PM
http://www.city-data.com/forum/attachments/oklahoma/23753d1216512869-official-oklahoma-forum-chattin-thread-rip-thread.jpg

out_here_grindin
05-19-2009, 01:42 AM
If you like this system go to NCAA tennis. That's how the rankings are done there, by the rank of thye players you have beaten.

GlennMirnyi
05-19-2009, 02:21 AM
Huge bullshit.

Ilovetheblues_86
05-19-2009, 03:40 AM
No, it is not and it never was... The same player does not "worth" the same on diferrent surfaces and his current ranking does not reflect his current form.

I agree.

w78dexon_y
05-19-2009, 05:49 AM
No, it is not and it never was... The same player does not "worth" the same on diferrent surfaces and his current ranking does not reflect his current form.

Some poeple are quick to jump and "find" a loophole in the system. However, only few are able to give a constructive feedback and evaluation of it.

The system is not meant to distinguish the surfaces point wise. Not even current system make difference point wise!! If you know the system that would be able to value a player per surface, please come up with. hehe...I no need a smilie for this one.

The idea of the "system" is not to reflect current form of a player. His ranking position is to value his point "weight".

The whole idea is, which you didn't get, to differ award for someone who beats Nadal (the #1) and someone who beats Tomas berdich (the #20). The reward must not be the same. Since the effort is not the same.

Whether it is on clay, concrete, grass or brick, it doesn't matter. Since it's not all depending on one single match nor on one single tournament! A tennis professional suppose to play more than just few tourneys anyway. The GS-s have all the same amount of ranking points in total regardless of the surface.

If you want to differ and value players by surface, fine! Go ahead and figure that ranking system. I am sure many would be thankful to you. Me first.

w78dexon_y
05-19-2009, 05:57 AM
Huge bullshit.

hehehe...i've noticed that many of the "premium" members believe that their status allows them to spray their own bullshit on anybody's posts as much as they please. LOL
For a few bucks a lot of fun! :devil:

Horatio Caine
05-19-2009, 06:51 AM
Why don't we have a 'sick' smiley? ;)

HeretiC
05-19-2009, 07:20 AM
Some poeple are quick to jump and "find" a loophole in the system. However, only few are able to give a constructive feedback and evaluation of it.

The system is not meant to distinguish the surfaces point wise. Not even current system make difference point wise!! If you know the system that would be able to value a player per surface, please come up with. hehe...I no need a smilie for this one.

The idea of the "system" is not to reflect current form of a player. His ranking position is to value his point "weight".

The whole idea is, which you didn't get, to differ award for someone who beats Nadal (the #1) and someone who beats Tomas berdich (the #20). The reward must not be the same. Since the effort is not the same.

Whether it is on clay, concrete, grass or brick, it doesn't matter. Since it's not all depending on one single match nor on one single tournament! A tennis professional suppose to play more than just few tourneys anyway. The GS-s have all the same amount of ranking points in total regardless of the surface.

If you want to differ and value players by surface, fine! Go ahead and figure that ranking system. I am sure many would be thankful to you. Me first.

That "system" has as many holes as Swiss cheese and that is why it is not used. You are talking about an effort ? Would be a bigger effort if you beat Nadal with a WO or if he retires in the first game of the match than to beat #496 Robin Haase in 5 sets?. The players "worth" are reflected by their draw, and if the lower ranked player defeats them, the reward is that they will be taking their draw. Since there is no convenient and objective way to represent the current "worth" of the player (rankings are based on 52 week achievement) or the "effort" for beating a player, every round is validated the same for everyone and that is how it should be.

Goldenoldie
05-19-2009, 08:12 AM
Whatever the ranking system, there will always be people dissatisfied with it. Too much/not enough weight for Slams, too many/too few points for 1st/2nd/3rd round losers, no credit for beating seeds, credit for walkovers, penalties for withdrawal etc etc.

It's the same for everybody, and the best players will reach the top, and the lesser players won't.

Renaud
05-19-2009, 08:23 AM
Midd '80-es and earlier.
Bonus points were given until they created The race, so until about ten yars ago.

«Ivan»
05-19-2009, 10:47 AM
hehehe...i've noticed that many of the "premium" members believe that their status allows them to spray their own bullshit on anybody's posts as much as they please. LOL
For a few bucks a lot of fun! :devil:

this :retard:ness has nothing to do with premiumship.you're both :retard:s
glenn is clown of the house but you're on the run.

:kiss:

w78dexon_y
05-19-2009, 12:47 PM
this :retard:ness has nothing to do with premiumship.you're both :retard:s
glenn is clown of the house but you're on the run.

:kiss:

you're a genious.

MacTheKnife
05-19-2009, 12:59 PM
That "system" has as many holes as Swiss cheese and that is why it is not used. You are talking about an effort ? Would be a bigger effort if you beat Nadal with a WO or if he retires in the first game of the match than to beat #496 Robin Haase in 5 sets?. The players "worth" are reflected by their draw, and if the lower ranked player defeats them, the reward is that they will be taking their draw. Since there is no convenient and objective way to represent the current "worth" of the player (rankings are based on 52 week achievement) or the "effort" for beating a player, every round is validated the same for everyone and that is how it should be.

I agree with this. The system is not perfect but to me it is one of the best and most fair ranking systems in sports. What would be next, awarding more points for how badly you beat somebody. Straight sets, begals, or sticks worth more than pulling out a five setter. There are some good wins and there are some poor wins, but they are all wins, and you play the hand you are dealt and rewarded for how far you progress.

Manon
05-19-2009, 03:37 PM
Bonus points were given until they created The race, so until about ten yars ago.

Yes, corrected.