New ATP Doubles Rankings for 2009. What do you think ? [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

New ATP Doubles Rankings for 2009. What do you think ?

trucul
12-23-2008, 12:21 PM
ATP have released their new FAQ for Rankings for 2009:

http://www.atpworldtour.com/en/players/information/rankfaq.asp

Q. How does the ATP Doubles Rankings work?


A. The ATP Doubles Ranking is based on calculating, for each player, his total points from his best 18 results from all eligible tournaments, including the Barclays ATP World Tour Finals (Doubles) played in the 52-week ranking period. For entry purposes there are no mandatory events, however, once a player is accepted in the main draw of one of these 12 tournaments, as a direct acceptance,a qualifier or a lucky loser or having accepted a wild card, his result in this tournament shall count for his ranking, whether or not he participates.

Q. How does the ATP Doubles Team Rankings work?

A. Each team is ranked according to its total points from its best 18 results from all eligible tournaments (Grand Slam, ATP World Tour, including the Barclays ATP World Tour Finals) played in the calendar year. Loser points for the rounds achieved are awarded to players in any tournament not completed. The ATP Doubles Team Rankings are used to determine the year-end World No. 1 team and which eight teams qualify for the Barclays ATP World Tour Finals.

For Doubles, my understanding is that the following will change:

- there is no more Race Rankings published but it is replaced by a doubles individual ranking and a doubles team ranking based on last 52 weeks.
- Ranking is based on best 18 results of calendar year(compared to best 14 in 2008)
- I don't understand what means "one of these 12 tournaments": this is surely the GS + 1000 events.
- I am not sure Davis Cup doubles will count but if, what is written here is true, it should:
http://stevegtennis.com/rankpoints.txt

JMG
12-23-2008, 01:59 PM
This new rule should be bad for players who lose often in the first round of the big 12 events, like for example Jamie Murray did last season.

CooCooCachoo
12-23-2008, 06:08 PM
This new rule should be bad for players who lose often in the first round of the big 12 events, like for example Jamie Murray did last season.

It will also be disadvantageous to those players who do not frequently play doubles, but have some good results in the events they do play. In other words, it will favour doubles specialists by taking into account the best 18 rather than 14 results.

Deboogle!.
12-23-2008, 06:22 PM
It will also be disadvantageous to those players who do not frequently play doubles, but have some good results in the events they do play. In other words, it will favour doubles specialists by taking into account the best 18 rather than 14 results.Sounds good to me. It sounds like they basically made it a bit closer to the singles ranking, which makes sense I guess.

Blarghman
01-07-2009, 08:16 PM
It looks to me like making R16 at a GS will no longer yield any ranking points, if the ATP website (http://www.atpworldtour.com/1/en/tournaments/profile/580.asp) is to be believed. Are GS doubles draws smaller this year, or are they still 64? :shrug:

I suspect that this is just a typo, but it's tough to be sure with the ATP :rolleyes:, and I can't find anything about it one way or the other in other places. Does anyone here have any idea what is going on, have I just missed something obvious :confused:

If it is accurate, it seems very silly, as winning two doubles matches at a GS would now be worth less than winning three at a futures event. :help:

Deboogle!.
01-07-2009, 08:17 PM
Surely that's a mistake :lol: it has to be :lol:

cobalt60
01-07-2009, 09:29 PM
:rolls: Let's see if whomever monitors the website reads MTF;)

CooCooCachoo
01-09-2009, 09:41 AM
Big mistake :tape:

Blarghman
01-15-2009, 10:04 AM
Further confusion for me, the FAQ says that the best 18 results should count for ranking, but the player pages (http://www.atpworldtour.com/3/en/players/playerprofiles/doublespointsbreakdown.asp?player=Z072) still say 'best 14', and contain only 14 results plus Masters Cup? :unsure:

Also, rankings are calculated from 14, not 18! :eek: If they were 18, the Bryans would be #1, they have several non-counting finals, and Nestor would be ahead of Zimonjic for #3. WTF is going on here? Is the ATP just wrong here, either in the rules or the website, or have I missed something obvious? :rolleyes:

Deboogle!.
01-15-2009, 03:05 PM
I honestly have no idea, it's really perplexing that's for sure. maybe Judio our GM rankings guru knows :scratch: