Potential impact of 2009 ranking system (top 100): CONCLUSION - journeymen beware! [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Potential impact of 2009 ranking system (top 100): CONCLUSION - journeymen beware!

Horatio Caine
12-27-2008, 05:06 PM
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...:o).

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.

Horatio Caine
12-27-2008, 05:07 PM
Post #25 - conclusion to the rankings "experiment."


01 (01) Rafael Nadal (ESP) 11,915
02 (03) Novak Djokovic (SRB) 9,145
03 (02) Roger Federer (SUI) 8,980
04 (04) Andy Murray (GBR) 5,735
05 (05) Nikolay Davydenko (RUS) 4,255
06 (08) Andy Roddick (USA) 3,345
07 (06) Jo-Wilfried Tsonga (FRA) 3,195
08 (09) Juan-Martin Del Potro (ARG) 3,040
09 (11) David Nalbandian (ARG) 2,720
10 (07) Gilles Simon (FRA) 2,647
11 (12) David Ferrer (ESP) 2,630
12 (10) James Blake (USA) 2,405
13 (18) Nicolas Almagro (ESP) 2,025
14 (13) Stanislas Wawrinka (SUI) 1,980
15 (14) Gael Monfils (FRA) 1,935
16 (15) Fernando Gonzalez (CHI) 1,885
17 (20) Tomas Berdych (CZE) 1,805
18 (16) Fernando Verdasco (ESP) 1,710
19 (17) Robin Soderling (SWE) 1,695
20 (19) Igor Andreev (RUS) 1,690
21 (21) Tommy Robredo (ESP) 1,670
22 (24) Mardy Fish (USA) 1,565
23 (27) Radek Stepanek (CZE) 1,520
24 (26) Ivo Karlovic (CRO) 1,505
25 (30) Feliciano Lopez (ESP) 1,470
26 (25) Richard Gasquet (FRA) 1,445
27 (29) Marat Safin (RUS) 1,395
28 (33) Rainer Schuettler (GER) 1,342
29 (23) Marin Cilic (CRO) 1,295
30 (38) Nicolas Kiefer (GER) 1,295
31 (32) Mikhail Youzhny (RUS) 1,285
32 (22) Dmitry Tursunov (RUS) 1,260
33 (28) Philipp Kohlschreiber (GER) 1,250
34 (40) Michael Llodra (FRA) 1,220
35 (39) Sam Querrey (USA) 1,200
36 (35) Andreas Seppi (ITA) 1,165
37 (36) Mario Ancic (CRO) 1,125
38 (37) Jarkko Nieminen (FIN) 1,110
39 (31) Paul-Henri Mathieu (FRA) 1,075
40 (41) Simone Bolelli (ITA) 1,056
41 (61) Steve Darcis (BEL) 1,032
42 (48) Jose Acasuso (ARG) 1,015
43 (34) Jurgen Melzer (AUT) 1,013
44 (57) Viktor Troicki (SRB) 993
45 (53) Ernests Gulbis (LAT) 965
46 (56) Marcel Granollers (ESP) 945
47 (43) Julien Benneteau (FRA) 925
48 (42) Carlos Moya (ESP) 900
49 (45) Albert Montanes (ESP) 900
50 (46) Juan Monaco (ARG) 895
51 (50) Victor Hanescu (ROU) 890
52 (47) Igor Kunitsyn (RUS) 888
53 (51) Robby Ginepri (USA) 870
54 (59) Florent Serra (FRA) 853
55 (49) Janko Tipsarevic (SRB) 840
56 (54) Marc Gicquel (FRA) 838
57 (58) Eduardo Schwank (ARG) 837
58 (55) Juan-Carlo Ferrero (ESP) 835
59 (63) Kei Nishikori (JPN) 828
60 (52) Fabrice Santoro (FRA) 818
61 (62) Guillermo Garcia-Lopez (ESP) 785
62 (60) Agustin Calleri (ARG) 780
63 (82) Tommy Haas (GER) 770
64 (64) Yen-Hsun Lu (TPE) 757
65 (65) Teimuraz Gabashvili (RUS) 753
66 (70) Bobby Reynolds (USA) 743
67 (44) Ivan Ljubicic (CRO) 710
68 (72) Potito Starace (ITA) 706
69 (67) Lleyton Hewitt (AUS) 700
70 (84) Kristof Vliegen (BEL) 692
71 (76) Vincent Spadea (USA) 690
72 (71) Martin Vassallo-Arguello (ARG) 687
73 (68) Oscar Hernandez (ESP) 684
74 (86) Nicolas Lapentti (ECU) 668
75 (69) Christophe Rochus (BEL) 666
76 (83) Denis Gremelmayr (GER) 664
77 (74) Ivan Navarro-Pastor (ESP) 658
78 (99) Ivo Minar (CZE) 657
79 (77) Nicolas Massu (CHI) 654
80 (95) Gilles Muller (LUX) 653
81 (79) Guillermo Canas (ARG) 648
82 (66) Philipp Petzschner (GER) 647
83 (85) Thomaz Bellucci (BRZ) 640
84 (93) Arnaud Clement (FRA) 639
85 (78) Diego Junqueira (ARG) 638
86 (88) Fabio Fognini (ITA) 638
87 (81) Jan Hernych (CZE) 636
88 (89) Andrey Golubev (KAZ) 634
89 (94) Nicolas Mahut (FRA) 625
90 (90) Daniel Gimeno-Traver (ESP) 617
91 (97) Robert Kendrick (USA) 607
92 (75) Jeremy Chardy (FRA) 606
93 (92) Sergiy Stakhovsky (UKR) 601
94 (91) Roko Karanusic (CRO) 600
95 (87) Marcos Daniel (BRZ) 596
96 (96) Chris Guccione (AUS) 594
97 (73) Nicolas Devilder (FRA) 587
98 (80) Mischa Zverev (GER) 585
99 (98) Marcos Baghdatis (CYP) 555
100 (100) Alberto Martin (ESP) 531

(xx) - position under old ranking system.



A few interesting points to note:

1. Djokovic would have been ranked ahead of Federer. :eek:

2. The more over-inflated players are more easily exposed (e.g. Tursunov), while others get a little more recognition for isolated good results in bigger events (e.g. Lopez, Almagro, Kiefer)...not a bad thing, as some will agree. :yeah:

3. Little protection for year-end top 30 players who later suffer injury/poor form which could push them out of future "cut" for Masters "1000" events, as they are supposedly required to participate in (e.g. Ljubicic...who would probably be ranked below #65 under new system). :awww:

Johnny Groove
12-27-2008, 05:09 PM
Save for Nadal, Murray, and Davydenko, everyone else in the top 55 would be altered :tape:

krystlel
12-27-2008, 05:18 PM
That must have taken a lot of work. :eek: :worship:

Funny I was just wondering about this very particular topic about 5 minutes ago, then there it is, conveniently on here for me to see.

Obviously the big difference, the one the press would care about, is Djokovic being #2, instead of Federer.

Apart from that I actually thought it would have impacted the rankings more than it did - which was just a bad prediction from me, nothing more (not a comment on the system itself).

kiwi10is
12-27-2008, 05:22 PM
wow that was a lot of work....

Kiefer would be seeded in Australia if the AtP would have recalculated the 2008 results...:banghead:

Action Jackson
12-27-2008, 05:23 PM
I heard somewhere that instead of the finalst points being 70% of the winner, it has been reduced to 60%, so yes the gap is bigger naturally.

For some reason I don't see this getting scrapped after 2009.

Horatio Caine
12-27-2008, 05:24 PM
That must have taken a lot of work. :eek: :worship:

A couple of hours...but time better spent than being crushed in the post-Christmas sales. :lol: :o

But yeah, I was wondering about this a good week ago, and thought I'd leave enough time to see if anyone else were to bite the bullet. Blaze was on the right track with his thread, and that was an interesting read. :yeah:


Kiefer would be seeded in Australia if the AtP would have recalculated the 2008 results...:banghead:

Under my calculations, yes...but the points gap (between #30-33) is sufficiently close that someone else compiling a similar list might have placed him just outside the top 32, somehow. :)

At any rate, he would have been greater rewarded for his strong TMS Canada result.

Sunset of Age
12-27-2008, 05:28 PM
A few interesting points to note:

1. Djokovic would have been ranked ahead of Federer. :eek:

2. The more over-inflated players are more easily exposed (e.g. Tursunov), while others get a little more recognition for isolated good results in bigger events (e.g. Lopez, Almagro)...not a bad thing, as some will agree. :yeah:

3. Little protection for year-end top 30 players who later suffer injury/poor form which could push them out of future "cut" for Masters "1000" events, as they are supposedly required to participate in (e.g. Ljubicic...who would probably be ranked below #65 under new system). :awww:

Great job! :yeah:

Obviously the big difference, the one the press would care about, is Djokovic being #2, instead of Federer.

Well the difference of merely 10 points now is barely what you may call a 'major lead' for Feds anyways.

Johnny Groove
12-27-2008, 05:29 PM
A couple of hours...but time better spent than being crushed in the post-Christmas sales. :lol: :o

But yeah, I was wondering about this a good week ago, and thought I'd leave enough time to see if anyone else were to bite the bullet. Blaze was on the right track with his thread, and that was an interesting read. :yeah:

Yeah, mine took a good while as well. Time well spent though as I'm also post-Christmas broke :lol:

Jez, if we in theory applied my point structure to the 08 rankings, you think anyone would change?

Horatio Caine
12-27-2008, 05:45 PM
Yeah, mine took a good while as well. Time well spent though as I'm also post-Christmas broke :lol:

Jez, if we in theory applied my point structure to the 08 rankings, you think anyone would change?

:lol:

Yeah, good question Jon...and I'm really not sure how to answer it! On the one hand, I think you're giving greater recognition for stronger achievement in the biggest events (GS and Masters)...so maybe Federer would suffer a little more, in that respect, and players like Kiefer, Safin, Lopez, Seppi etc (who scored the odd one or two strong results at Masters/GS level) might benefit from a few extra positions.

On the other hand, this might be negated by your more even distribution of points in the lower events (compared to the points on offer for the bigger events)...so the guys living more off their optionals results (including those players emerging from challenger level) might actually reclaim some of the positions they might have lost under the new 2009 rankings system.


Away from the analysis, I like your breakdown of points for the GS/Masters level...but I agree with a few others in thinking that maybe you were over-rewarding good results at Futures level (although I share your belief that these guys, in particular, would need a helping hand as concerns their career prospects...especially if they didn't make immediate moves up the rankings).

Johnny Groove
12-27-2008, 05:47 PM
:lol:

Yeah, good question Jon...and I'm really not sure how to answer it! On the one hand, I think you're giving greater recognition for stronger achievement in the biggest events (GS and Masters)...so maybe Federer would suffer a little more, in that respect, and players like Kiefer, Safin, Lopez, Seppi etc (who scored the odd one or two strong results at Masters/GS level) might benefit from a few extra positions.

On the other hand, this might be negated by your more even distribution of points in the lower events (compared to the points on offer for the bigger events)...so the guys living more off their optionals results (including those players emerging from challenger level) might actually reclaim some of the positions they might have lost under the new 2009 rankings system.


Away from the analysis, I like your breakdown of points for the GS/Masters level...but I agree with a few others in thinking that maybe you were over-rewarding good results at Futures level (although I share your belief that these guys, in particular, would need a helping hand as concerns their career prospects...especially if they didn't make immediate moves up the rankings).

:lol: I changed it actually, I gave less points for futures, but the biggest thing I think is giving points for qualifying for futures. The fact that an 18 year old kid can win 3-4 matches in qualifying and not get even a point for it was bullshit in my opinion.

Horatio Caine
12-27-2008, 05:53 PM
:lol: I changed it actually, I gave less points for futures, but the biggest thing I think is giving points for qualifying for futures. The fact that an 18 year old kid can win 3-4 matches in qualifying and not get even a point for it was bullshit in my opinion.

Yeah, I think they should get 1 point for qualifying (or maybe introduce a 0.5pt), as recognition for potentially winning 3 matches (if unseeded in qualies). I remember reading about a British player (maybe in 2007?) who had qualified for a number of Futures events but didn't score his first point until something like his 5th, 6th or 7th main draw R1 attempt...pretty rough going! :hysteric: Especially when we're talking of players/tennis nations that perhaps need all the support they can get in reaching the higher levels of competition.

Andre♥
12-27-2008, 05:55 PM
A couple of hours...but time better spent than being crushed in the post-Christmas sales. :lol: :o

Black Friday > * :p

Great job, Jez! :yeah:

Johnny Groove
12-27-2008, 05:56 PM
Yeah, I think they should get 1 point for qualifying (or maybe introduce a 0.5pt), as recognition for potentially winning 3 matches (if unseeded in qualies). I remember reading about a British player (maybe in 2007?) who had qualified for a number of Futures events but didn't score his first point until something like his 5th, 6th or 7th main draw R1 attempt...pretty rough going! :hysteric: Especially when we're talking of players/tennis nations that perhaps need all the support they can get in reaching the higher levels of competition.

I don't think 0.5 points would work too well, it could easily become confusing, no?

Maybe 2 points for qualifying for the biggest future and only 1 point for the other 2?

GlennMirnyi
12-27-2008, 06:53 PM
Shows what a freaking pathetic job ATP is doing changing the points.

Hope this goes wrong in all possible manners.

Henry Chinaski
12-27-2008, 10:43 PM
good work jez. I'd be interested to see the % points differential between say the player ranked say 20 and those ranked 50, 75, 100, 125, 150 etc last year in comparison to this year. see to what extent to gap between rich and poor would increase

(though with the new calendar the results wouldn't necessarily be repeated as more challenger players should hopefull get the chance to play in 250 events in 2009 given there will be 4 of them some weeks)

ORGASMATRON
12-27-2008, 10:59 PM
01 (01) Rafael Nadal (ESP) 11,915
02 (03) Novak Djokovic (SRB) 9,145
03 (02) Roger Federer (SUI) 8,980
04 (04) Andy Murray (GBR) 5,735
05 (05) Nikolay Davydenko (RUS) 4,255
06 (08) Andy Roddick (USA) 3,345
07 (06) Jo-Wilfried Tsonga (FRA) 3,195
08 (09) Juan-Martin Del Potro (ARG) 3,040
09 (11) David Nalbandian (ARG) 2,720
10 (07) Gilles Simon (FRA) 2,647
11 (12) David Ferrer (ESP) 2,630
12 (10) James Blake (USA) 2,405
13 (18) Nicolas Almagro (ESP) 2,025
14 (13) Stanislas Wawrinka (SUI) 1,980
15 (14) Gael Monfils (FRA) 1,935
16 (15) Fernando Gonzalez (CHI) 1,885
17 (20) Tomas Berdych (CZE) 1,805
18 (16) Fernando Verdasco (ESP) 1,710
19 (17) Robin Soderling (SWE) 1,695
20 (19) Igor Andreev (RUS) 1,690
21 (21) Tommy Robredo (ESP) 1,670
22 (24) Mardy Fish (USA) 1,565
23 (27) Radek Stepanek (CZE) 1,520
24 (26) Ivo Karlovic (CRO) 1,505
25 (30) Feliciano Lopez (ESP) 1,470
26 (25) Richard Gasquet (FRA) 1,445
27 (29) Marat Safin (RUS) 1,395
28 (33) Rainer Schuettler (GER) 1,342
29 (23) Marin Cilic (CRO) 1,295
30 (38) Nicolas Kiefer (GER) 1,295
31 (32) Mikhail Youzhny (RUS) 1,285
32 (22) Dmitry Tursunov (RUS) 1,260
33 (28) Philipp Kohlschreiber (GER) 1,250
34 (40) Michael Llodra (FRA) 1,220
35 (39) Sam Querrey (USA) 1,200
36 (35) Andreas Seppi (ITA) 1,165
37 (36) Mario Ancic (CRO) 1,125
38 (37) Jarkko Nieminen (FIN) 1,110
39 (31) Paul-Henri Mathieu (FRA) 1,075
40 (41) Simone Bolelli (ITA) 1,056
41 (48) Jose Acasuso (ARG) 1,015
42 (34) Jurgen Melzer (AUT) 1,013
43 (53) Ernests Gulbis (LAT) 965
44 (43) Julien Benneteau (FRA) 925
45 (42) Carlos Moya (ESP) 900
46 (45) Albert Montanes (ESP) 900
47 (46) Juan Monaco (ARG) 895
48 (50) Victor Hanescu (ROU) 890
49 (47) Igor Kunitsyn (RUS) 888
50 (51) Robby Ginepri (USA) 870
51 (49) Janko Tipsarevic (SRB) 840
52 (54) Marc Gicquel (FRA) 838
53 (55) Juan-Carlo Ferrero (ESP) 835
54 (52) Fabrice Santoro (FRA) 818
55 (44) Ivan Ljubicic (CRO) 710

(xx) - position under old ranking system.



A few interesting points to note:

1. Djokovic would have been ranked ahead of Federer. :eek:

2. The more over-inflated players are more easily exposed (e.g. Tursunov), while others get a little more recognition for isolated good results in bigger events (e.g. Lopez, Almagro, Kiefer)...not a bad thing, as some will agree. :yeah:

3. Little protection for year-end top 30 players who later suffer injury/poor form which could push them out of future "cut" for Masters "1000" events, as they are supposedly required to participate in (e.g. Ljubicic...who would probably be ranked below #65 under new system). :awww:

How can The King be ranked below Nole though if he won a slam, made two finals and lost in the semi's of another? :confused:

Sunset of Age
12-27-2008, 11:07 PM
How can The King be ranked below Nole though if he won a slam, made two finals and lost in the semi's of another? :confused:

Because 'The King' (:p) made quite a mess of the rest of his season, most notably the TMC, where he lost buckets of points - and NO Masters Title whatsoever either. ;)
A 10-point difference in the 'old' ranking wasn't exactly a major lead either...

JolánGagó
12-27-2008, 11:12 PM
Nice job, thanks :yeah:

but any ranking with Djoker as 2d don't have any credibility.

nobama
12-27-2008, 11:14 PM
boy the bigwigs sure do know how to f*ck things up don't they? What was wrong with the old ranking system? It's not like the WTA where you have a slamless #1. :o

Seems to me there are a lot of things that need fixing on the tour, but ranking system wasn't one of them.

ORGASMATRON
12-27-2008, 11:23 PM
Because 'The King' (:p) made quite a mess of the rest of his season, most notably the TMC, where he lost buckets of points - and NO Masters Title whatsoever either. ;)
A 10-point difference in the 'old' ranking wasn't exactly a major lead either...

Point taken, but doing well in the slams is the most important thing. Its shows something about the man that he could pull it together for the slams.

Sunset of Age
12-27-2008, 11:32 PM
Point taken, but doing well in the slams is the most important thing. Its shows something about the man that he could pull it together for the slams.

Absolutely. It must be noted, though, that the best-of-five format suits Federer very well. At least it gives some hope that he'll indeed be able to break Sampras' GS record, if not this year, than surely in the years to come. :)

amirbachar
12-27-2008, 11:48 PM
Lubicic would have lost 80 points in the new system. That's really strange given the overall increasment.

Horatio Caine
12-30-2008, 05:33 PM
I don't think 0.5 points would work too well, it could easily become confusing, no?

Maybe 2 points for qualifying for the biggest future and only 1 point for the other 2?

Maybe, but 0.5pts would help a little to reduce the huge numbers of players sharing the same ranking at the lowest levels.

Horatio Caine
12-30-2008, 05:54 PM
As you'll now see, I've decided to "finish the job" and re-rank the entire 2008 year-end top 100 (but going no further than that, mind. :p). :o

The extended list does reveal some further interesting trends:

- check out the huge rises for Darcis (+20 places), Haas (+19), Minar (+21) and Muller (+15). In a couple of cases (namely Darcis and Muller), it is proof that an isolated strong result in a huge event can have a large, positive effect on a player's ranking (as opposed to winning a top-tier challenger, for example). In other cases (Haas and Minar), it is proof that a collection of "solid" ATP results (for Minar, qualifying/winning a round in a handful of ATP events) will still almost count for more than a collection of strong challenger results.

- contrast the above with the following taking a dive - Petzschner (-16 places), Junqueira (-7), Chardy (-17), Daniel (-8), Devilder (-24) and Zverev (-18). Now this is what is important...those players that compiled outstanding challenger results in order to break through into the elite (namely Junqueira and Devilder - betweem them, they advanced to at least the SF 18 times!), will NOT get the same level of recognition having failed to add (useful) points from ATP level wins to their ranking. For Petzschner, Chardy and Zverev...these guys pay a small price for failing to compile anything more than a couple of "exceptional" results (90% of the time these guys didn't go beyond QF at any level).

Horatio Caine
12-30-2008, 06:12 PM
A further point...if a player is hoping to break the top 100, there seems to be a greater emphasis not only on actually consistently reaching the very last stages of challenger events, but also doing that in the biggest challenger tournaments. A few titles/runner-up in the smaller challengers aren't of as much use.

So, for our favourite journeyman players (e.g. Guccione, Bogdanovic), who tend to win a few of the smaller challenger titles, at best, in a season...this could spell the the beginning of the end. :sad: Think about the (negative) impact this could have on some the "weaker" tennis nations (e.g. Great Britain, Australia, Chile) who are still able to boast a few challenger level players (over nations who can't even boast that)...at least for now.

Johnny Groove
12-30-2008, 06:20 PM
So now the very best challenger players will need to partake in more ATP events.

Now the ATP qualifying events will be very interesting.

stebs
12-30-2008, 06:27 PM
Great work Jez and I think the implications are that a big percentage of the top 65/70 will have to get at least a few big wins during the year. By a big win I mean that over a top 40 player perhaps, either that or get a soft draw. Thing is, with the larger gap in the points that can be won in IS events (500's, 250's), it wil be interesting to see the variety in whether players around the 50 mark come from hoarding of smaller events, isolated big results or a mixture of the two.

Horatio Caine
12-30-2008, 06:32 PM
So now the very best challenger players will need to partake in more ATP events.

Now the ATP qualifying events will be very interesting.

Certainly the guys that are best at tearing up the smaller challenger events need to do something more (win the biggest challengers or string a couple of wins together at ATP level), at any rate.

But, as you'll see from the list, the points are veeeeery close at the bottom end of the top 100, obviously. So maybe a further strong challenger result from somewhere wouldn't count any less for a player in such a situation as reaching the QF/SF of a "250" event, for example.

What is certain is that the rankings are likely to be more unpredictable than they used to be. I mean, if a lower-ranked guy suddenly breaks through in one "500" event (as Gremelmayr did, in 2008 - Barcelona), that could inflate his ranking somewhat more than it would have done under the old system...all it takes is for a few Gremelmayrs to do this, and the more seasoned challenger pros are bumped a few extra places down the rankings.

Johnny Groove
12-30-2008, 06:34 PM
Certainly the guys that are best at tearing up the smaller challenger events need to do something more (win the biggest challengers or string a couple of wins together at ATP level), at any rate.

But, as you'll see from the list, the points are veeeeery close at the bottom end of the top 100, obviously. So maybe a further strong challenger result from somewhere wouldn't count any less for a player in such a situation as reaching the QF/SF of a "250" event, for example.

What is certain is that the rankings are likely to be more unpredictable than they used to be. I mean, if a lower-ranked guy suddenly breaks through in one "500" event (as Gremelmayr did, in 2008 - Barcelona), that could inflate his ranking somewhat more than it would have done under the old system...all it takes is for a few Gremelmayrs to do this, and the more seasoned challenger pros are bumped a few extra places down the rankings.

Which would mean that the challenger vets would also need to get some ATP event wins. Basically it all breeds a lot more competition, don't you think?

Henry Chinaski
12-30-2008, 06:50 PM
Which would mean that the challenger vets would also need to get some ATP event wins. Basically it all breeds a lot more competition, don't you think?

possibly but it could be a hell of a lot tougher for the up-and-comers from small tennis nations (ie sans wildcards) to even make to it ATP level now. a longer time period means an increased financial burden and potential talent could be lost at an early age.

also, some historically important tennis nations only have challenger events. downgrade them and you do more damge to those countries. Czech Republic is the most obvious examples.

I don't have a problem with guys like Devilder, who only attempted to qualify for 3 ATP events, having to earn more points at a higher level.

Johnny Groove
12-30-2008, 07:04 PM
possibly but it could be a hell of a lot tougher for the up-and-comers from small tennis nations (ie sans wildcards) to even make to it ATP level now. a longer time period means an increased financial burden and potential talent could be lost at an early age.

also, some historically important tennis nations only have challenger events. downgrade them and you do more damge to those countries. Czech Republic is the most obvious examples.

I don't have a problem with guys like Devilder, who only attempted to qualify for 3 ATP events, having to earn more points at a higher level.

Very true. Do you think the ATP should raise prize money on the challenger level to give players like this a fighting chance?

Johnny Groove
12-30-2008, 07:33 PM
There were plenty of ATP level events last year that had byes in the draw or unranked players making the cut. With the new points system, these byes will be eliminated and ATP quali events will become heavy.

For example, a player stuck between ATP and challenger events has a decision to make:

1. Segovia Challenger, a huge challenger, with a 164 main draw cutoff

For a theoretical 3 wins and SF loss, he gets 45 points under new ranking, and 6050 Euros

OR

2. Casablanca ATP, an historically low-level ATP event, with a 114 main draw cutoff

For a theoretical 3 wins and SF loss, he gets 90 points under new ranking and 20940 Euros

Double the points and over 3 times the cash :eek:

This will surely force more and more players to play more ATP events than challengers to get their ranking up. Not a bad move on the ATP's part when you think about it :shrug:

Henry Chinaski
12-30-2008, 08:13 PM
Very true. Do you think the ATP should raise prize money on the challenger level to give players like this a fighting chance?

I think the logical thing would be to have just increased challenger/futures points at a more similar proportion to other events. was the old system really broken?

Henry Chinaski
12-30-2008, 08:16 PM
This will surely force more and more players to play more ATP events than challengers to get their ranking up. Not a bad move on the ATP's part when you think about it :shrug:

It's hard to say. If ATP qualifying draws become a lot more competitive then the risk of a big fat zero becomes a lot higher as well...

Though during weeks where there are 4 ATP 250's you'd expect a lot of challenger regulars to get into an ATP draw so I'm hoping this will redress the balance of decreased ch points. It remains to be seen.

fast_clay
12-30-2008, 08:31 PM
It's hard to say. If ATP qualifying draws become a lot more competitive then the risk of a big fat zero becomes a lot higher as well...


there is a real threat there...

there are ways of redressing the issue is larger qualifying spots (4-->8) in 250 draws... + allowing players to enter ATP qually draws and still enter that atp week's challenger or futures event if they do not qualify for the atp event, thereby not forfeiting a whole weeks bread and butter for a gamble at 250 level...

duong
01-01-2009, 10:18 AM
I did the same job.

Some of the results I got are similar (Djokovic ahead of Federer, rises for Darcis and Müller, dives for Chardy, Zverev and Junqueira),
some are different (e.g for Roddick, Petzschner).

More surprisingly, I didn't understand the way you made your calculation :
for instance, it would help me if you told me how you got 2720 points for Nalbandian.
I personally got 2495 points (235 points in the slams, 890 points in the Masters Series excluding Monte-Carlo, 300 points in Acapulco, 300 points in Basel, 250 points in Stockholm, 250 points in Buenos-Aires, 180 points in Monte-Carlo, 90 points in the Queens).

This is only an example to give me an idea about our differences :
for Nalbandian, one difference might be the Davis Cup because I did't take it into account so far, but it's just an example I chose not to be bothered about the Olympic Games (for which we might have used different points system) and to have several categories of tournaments in the total.

More importantly, I don't exactly agree with your conclusions about the challengers.

First the difference between the higher and the lower challengers is decreased in the new system, whereas you similarly said the opposite.

Secondly the challengers are not so much downgraded comparing to the ATP-250 tournaments.

What's really new is that you have to win the challenger or at least go to the final to really earn some points.

But is it more difficult to win a challenger (around 90 points) than to be a semi-finalist in an ATP-250 tournament (90 points) ?

The fact is that quite many players in the top-100 did win many tournaments on the challenger level last year ... but not so many of the top-100 did often reach the semi-final of an ATP-tournament.

The two most important evolutions of the new system are that :

- the Masters Cup, the Grand Slams, the Masters Series and the ATP-500 tournaments are upgraded a lot

- the fact of winning a tournament is upgraded a lot (or at least reaching the quarter-finals in a Grand Slams or Masters Series) ... which allows a big improvement for Darcis or Petzschner or Müller for instance who did such an isolated result last year in a ATP-500 or grand slam tournament.

After that, the three other major evolutions are that :

- the challengers are downgraded comparing to the ATP-250 tournaments

- the tournaments which give a high prize money but which didn't get and ATP-500 tournament (Doha, St Petersburg, Moscow, Vienna, Queens, Halle, Lyon, Stockholm, Marseille, New Haven) are downgraded comparing to the ATP-500 tournaments

- the rules are far harder to give zero point for not taking part in a tournament

I don't know if I'd be able to post a list of 100 players with their points here but if you tell me how you did to calculate Nalbandian for instance, I will be able to check my results and discuss the hypotheses.

Action Jackson
01-01-2009, 10:39 AM
I think the logical thing would be to have just increased challenger/futures points at a more similar proportion to other events. was the old system really broken?

Too easy to do that, there are more pressing problems, which they will fail to tackle.

It's hard to say. If ATP qualifying draws become a lot more competitive then the risk of a big fat zero becomes a lot higher as well...

Though during weeks where there are 4 ATP 250's you'd expect a lot of challenger regulars to get into an ATP draw so I'm hoping this will redress the balance of decreased ch points. It remains to be seen.

Like I said initially, they have the reduced the differences in the percentage of the finalist points in relation to the winner by around 10%. They seem very adamant in following through with these changes, but it's not a surprise really.

28 player draws aren't going to help IS (250) events are they, the week before a Slam, well fair enough, but outside of that, there is no reason for 28 player draws to exist.

This year could be interesting in this regard.

there is a real threat there...

there are ways of redressing the issue is larger qualifying spots (4-->8) in 250 draws... + allowing players to enter ATP qually draws and still enter that atp week's challenger or futures event if they do not qualify for the atp event, thereby not forfeiting a whole weeks bread and butter for a gamble at 250 level...

In an ideal world yes, it would be good, if the players that missed out on qualies could enter a challenger in the week they missed a MD, but it would be a logisitc problem, as they have to do the MD's and how many places are going to reserved for these players who don't make the MM draws, then this would be make it harder to organise.

This hasn't been done for the benefit of the game, it's been done to keep the ranking status quo as much as possible within a continually evolving game and making it harder than it already was to get to the promised land.

Horatio Caine
01-02-2009, 10:28 AM
More surprisingly, I didn't understand the way you made your calculation :
for instance, it would help me if you told me how you got 2720 points for Nalbandian.
I personally got 2495 points (235 points in the slams, 890 points in the Masters Series excluding Monte-Carlo, 300 points in Acapulco, 300 points in Basel, 250 points in Stockholm, 250 points in Buenos-Aires, 180 points in Monte-Carlo, 90 points in the Queens).

Grand Slam events: 90+90+45+10 = 235 (agree).
Masters 1000 events (excluding Monte Carlo): 600+180+90+10+10+0+0+0 = 890 (agree).

So, our difference seems to stem from the calculation of "500" and "250" event points. My understanding is that, as a player finishing 2007 in the top 30, Nalbandian can count 4 "500" events and 2 "250" events towards his ranking, as follows:

"500" events: 300(Basel) + 300(Acapulco) + 180(Monte Carlo) + 315(Davis Cup*) = 1,095.
"250" events: 250(Stockholm) + 250 (Buenos Aires) = 500.

TOTAL = 235+890+1095+500 = 2,720.


* - for Davis Cup, as with all other players on my list, I have counted only LIVE singles wins. For Nalbandian, the calculation is therefore straightforward as he didn't play any dead rubbers: 40(R1) + 65(QF) + 65(QF) + 70(SF) + 75(F) = 315.


More importantly, I don't exactly agree with your conclusions about the challengers.

First the difference between the higher and the lower challengers is decreased in the new system, whereas you similarly said the opposite.

Secondly the challengers are not so much downgraded comparing to the ATP-250 tournaments.

Yep, I agree with both points, and I apologise for my mistake. :o

As other(s) have said in previous posts, it looks like the general effect of the new ranking system is to make competition more competitive...for which I'm in agreement with Jon, in particular, in thinking that this is no bad thing.

Pre-2009, you'd need to win 8.6 lowest tier (55pts) challenger titles to effectively break the top 100...for 2009, this average drops to about 7.67 (assuming you need approx. 575pts to break top 100).


What's really new is that you have to win the challenger or at least go to the final to really earn some points.

But is it more difficult to win a challenger (around 90 points) than to be a semi-finalist in an ATP-250 tournament (90 points) ?

The fact is that quite many players in the top-100 did win many tournaments on the challenger level last year ... but not so many of the top-100 did often reach the semi-final of an ATP-tournament.

And this is potentially a big problem for the new system...effectively condemning those with more limited talent to a life in the doldrums, whereas, previously, it might have allowed a player whose true ranking is outside top 150, for example, to enjoy a short stint in the top 75-100, at the peak of his playing ability (through results largely obtained in challengers). The result of this might be that such players give up on a tennis career earlier than they could have done pre-2009, which, in the cases of the more struggling tennis nations, could be potentially disastrous in their efforts to develop new talent etc.

duong
01-02-2009, 12:03 PM
Grand Slam events: 90+90+45+10 = 235 (agree).
Masters 1000 events (excluding Monte Carlo): 600+180+90+10+10+0+0+0 = 890 (agree).

So, our difference seems to stem from the calculation of "500" and "250" event points. My understanding is that, as a player finishing 2007 in the top 30, Nalbandian can count 4 "500" events and 2 "250" events towards his ranking, as follows:

"500" events: 300(Basel) + 300(Acapulco) + 180(Monte Carlo) + 315(Davis Cup*) = 1,095.
"250" events: 250(Stockholm) + 250 (Buenos Aires) = 500.

TOTAL = 235+890+1095+500 = 2,720.


* - for Davis Cup, as with all other players on my list, I have counted only LIVE singles wins. For Nalbandian, the calculation is therefore straightforward as he didn't play any dead rubbers: 40(R1) + 65(QF) + 65(QF) + 70(SF) + 75(F) = 315. .

Thanks a lot ! :D

Actually it's quite funny because after including the Davis Cup, I realized that Nalbandian was one of the only cases for whom we got exactly the same results ! :lol:

Anyway, I'll look at that a little bit more, taking into account the rule of "the "4 best ATP-500" rule in particular, which I didn't take into account so far.

I'll come back about it later.

duong
01-02-2009, 12:18 PM
Anyway, what has most impressed me about the new ranking system so far,

is that the average points are not at all twice the results in 2008.

For the top-100 players, it seems that to treat equally the results in 2008 and 2009,

they should have rather multiplied the results in 2008 by 1.4 instead of 2.


The implication of that is huge,

since the 2008 results will be much over-weighted in the rankings comparing to the 2009 results as long as these 2008 results have not disappeared from the rankings



For instance, let's consider the rankings in september 2009 and a player A and a player B :

- A has played a semi-final in a small ATP-tournament in october 2008 (2X75 points) and has won a big challenger in november 2008 (2X90 points). A is not competitive in the beginning of 2009.

- B has played a semi-final in a small ATP-tournament in april 2009 (90 points) and has won a big challenger in july 2009 (110 points).

These are the same results for A and B.

But A will have 330=2X(75+90) points for that.

Whereas B will only have 200=90+110 points

Hence the older results from A will count for much more than the more recent results from B !! :eek:

It will be especially bad for the summer and fall rankings of specialist claycourt players (many results in spring and summer) comparing to specialist indoor players (more results in the end of the year).

Herdwick
01-02-2009, 12:25 PM
Great thread - thanks for your efforts. Cogent and interesting thinking.

Henry Chinaski
01-02-2009, 12:50 PM
yup. you have to wonder if the people responsible for the changes even bothered working out these permutations

amirbachar
01-02-2009, 01:28 PM
Post #25 - conclusion to the rankings "experiment."


01 (01) Rafael Nadal (ESP) 11,915
02 (03) Novak Djokovic (SRB) 9,145
03 (02) Roger Federer (SUI) 8,980
04 (04) Andy Murray (GBR) 5,735
05 (05) Nikolay Davydenko (RUS) 4,255
06 (08) Andy Roddick (USA) 3,345
07 (06) Jo-Wilfried Tsonga (FRA) 3,195
08 (09) Juan-Martin Del Potro (ARG) 3,040
09 (11) David Nalbandian (ARG) 2,720
10 (07) Gilles Simon (FRA) 2,647
11 (12) David Ferrer (ESP) 2,630
12 (10) James Blake (USA) 2,405
13 (18) Nicolas Almagro (ESP) 2,025
14 (13) Stanislas Wawrinka (SUI) 1,980
15 (14) Gael Monfils (FRA) 1,935
16 (15) Fernando Gonzalez (CHI) 1,885
17 (20) Tomas Berdych (CZE) 1,805
18 (16) Fernando Verdasco (ESP) 1,710
19 (17) Robin Soderling (SWE) 1,695
20 (19) Igor Andreev (RUS) 1,690
21 (21) Tommy Robredo (ESP) 1,670
22 (24) Mardy Fish (USA) 1,565
23 (27) Radek Stepanek (CZE) 1,520
24 (26) Ivo Karlovic (CRO) 1,505
25 (30) Feliciano Lopez (ESP) 1,470
26 (25) Richard Gasquet (FRA) 1,445
27 (29) Marat Safin (RUS) 1,395
28 (33) Rainer Schuettler (GER) 1,342
29 (23) Marin Cilic (CRO) 1,295
30 (38) Nicolas Kiefer (GER) 1,295
31 (32) Mikhail Youzhny (RUS) 1,285
32 (22) Dmitry Tursunov (RUS) 1,260
33 (28) Philipp Kohlschreiber (GER) 1,250
34 (40) Michael Llodra (FRA) 1,220
35 (39) Sam Querrey (USA) 1,200
36 (35) Andreas Seppi (ITA) 1,165
37 (36) Mario Ancic (CRO) 1,125
38 (37) Jarkko Nieminen (FIN) 1,110
39 (31) Paul-Henri Mathieu (FRA) 1,075
40 (41) Simone Bolelli (ITA) 1,056
41 (61) Steve Darcis (BEL) 1,032
42 (48) Jose Acasuso (ARG) 1,015
43 (34) Jurgen Melzer (AUT) 1,013
44 (57) Viktor Troicki (SRB) 993
45 (53) Ernests Gulbis (LAT) 965
46 (56) Marcel Granollers (ESP) 945
47 (43) Julien Benneteau (FRA) 925
48 (42) Carlos Moya (ESP) 900
49 (45) Albert Montanes (ESP) 900
50 (46) Juan Monaco (ARG) 895
51 (50) Victor Hanescu (ROU) 890
52 (47) Igor Kunitsyn (RUS) 888
53 (51) Robby Ginepri (USA) 870
54 (59) Florent Serra (FRA) 853
55 (49) Janko Tipsarevic (SRB) 840
56 (54) Marc Gicquel (FRA) 838
57 (58) Eduardo Schwank (ARG) 837
58 (55) Juan-Carlo Ferrero (ESP) 835
59 (63) Kei Nishikori (JPN) 828
60 (52) Fabrice Santoro (FRA) 818
61 (62) Guillermo Garcia-Lopez (ESP) 785
62 (60) Agustin Calleri (ARG) 780
63 (82) Tommy Haas (GER) 770
64 (64) Yen-Hsun Lu (TPE) 757
65 (65) Teimuraz Gabashvili (RUS) 753
66 (70) Bobby Reynolds (USA) 743
67 (44) Ivan Ljubicic (CRO) 710
68 (72) Potito Starace (ITA) 706
69 (67) Lleyton Hewitt (AUS) 700
70 (84) Kristof Vliegen (BEL) 692
71 (76) Vincent Spadea (USA) 690
72 (71) Martin Vassallo-Arguello (ARG) 687
73 (68) Oscar Hernandez (ESP) 684
74 (86) Nicolas Lapentti (ECU) 668
75 (69) Christophe Rochus (BEL) 666
76 (83) Denis Gremelmayr (GER) 664
77 (74) Ivan Navarro-Pastor (ESP) 658
78 (99) Ivo Minar (CZE) 657
79 (77) Nicolas Massu (CHI) 654
80 (95) Gilles Muller (LUX) 653
81 (79) Guillermo Canas (ARG) 648
82 (66) Philipp Petzschner (GER) 647
83 (85) Thomaz Bellucci (BRZ) 640
84 (93) Arnaud Clement (FRA) 639
85 (78) Diego Junqueira (ARG) 638
86 (88) Fabio Fognini (ITA) 638
87 (81) Jan Hernych (CZE) 636
88 (89) Andrey Golubev (KAZ) 634
89 (94) Nicolas Mahut (FRA) 625
90 (90) Daniel Gimeno-Traver (ESP) 617
91 (97) Robert Kendrick (USA) 607
92 (75) Jeremy Chardy (FRA) 606
93 (92) Sergiy Stakhovsky (UKR) 601
94 (91) Roko Karanusic (CRO) 600
95 (87) Marcos Daniel (BRZ) 596
96 (96) Chris Guccione (AUS) 594
97 (73) Nicolas Devilder (FRA) 587
98 (80) Mischa Zverev (GER) 585
99 (98) Marcos Baghdatis (CYP) 555
100 (100) Alberto Martin (ESP) 531

(xx) - position under old ranking system.



A few interesting points to note:

1. Djokovic would have been ranked ahead of Federer. :eek:

2. The more over-inflated players are more easily exposed (e.g. Tursunov), while others get a little more recognition for isolated good results in bigger events (e.g. Lopez, Almagro, Kiefer)...not a bad thing, as some will agree. :yeah:

3. Little protection for year-end top 30 players who later suffer injury/poor form which could push them out of future "cut" for Masters "1000" events, as they are supposedly required to participate in (e.g. Ljubicic...who would probably be ranked below #65 under new system). :awww:

Can you please put the real points next to each player (and the percentage of the new points comparing to them)?

duong
01-02-2009, 01:48 PM
Can you please put the real points next to each player (and the percentage of the new points comparing to them)?

just a part of the answer, but if it didn't appear clear enough,

according to my calculations,

the ratio between the points the got in 2008 and the ones they would have had with the new system is 1.4 on average for the top-100 players.

1.4 only whereas the ATP multiplied the 2008 points by 2 to start the year 2009,

which overweights the 2008 points by nearly 50% comparing to the 2009 points !!

Horatio Caine
01-02-2009, 03:06 PM
Can you please put the real points next to each player (and the percentage of the new points comparing to them)?

Have I not done enough? :awww:

Meh, January is a month of psychological rest for me...can't take anymore. :p

amirbachar
01-02-2009, 03:09 PM
just a part of the answer, but if it didn't appear clear enough,

according to my calculations,

the ratio between the points the got in 2008 and the ones they would have had with the new system is 1.4 on average for the top-100 players.

1.4 only whereas the ATP multiplied the 2008 points by 2 to start the year 2009,

which overweights the 2008 points by nearly 50% comparing to the 2009 points !!

Thanks - they should have multiplied the points by 1.4 or 1.5.
I still would like to see the percentage for each player though.

Action Jackson
01-02-2009, 03:11 PM
amir, do it yourself then.

amirbachar
01-02-2009, 03:42 PM
I made the parsing and calculations (points with new system, old points, percentage).
The average percentage for the top 100 is 1.29.
It means the points from 2008 will be value more than 1.5 times the points from 2009 (on average).


01 (01) Rafael Nadal (ESP) 11,915 6675 1.79
02 (03) Novak Djokovic (SRB) 9,145 5295 1.73
03 (02) Roger Federer (SUI) 8,980 5305 1.69
04 (04) Andy Murray (GBR) 5,735 3720 1.54
05 (05) Nikolay Davydenko (RUS) 4,255 2715 1.57
06 (08) Andy Roddick (USA) 3,345 1970 1.70
07 (06) Jo-Wilfried Tsonga (FRA) 3,195 2050 1.56
08 (09) Juan-Martin Del Potro (ARG) 3,040 1945 1.56
09 (11) David Nalbandian (ARG) 2,720 1725 1.58
10 (07) Gilles Simon (FRA) 2,647 1980 1.34
11 (12) David Ferrer (ESP) 2,630 1695 1.55
12 (10) James Blake (USA) 2,405 1775 1.35
13 (18) Nicolas Almagro (ESP) 2,025 1270 1.59
14 (13) Stanislas Wawrinka (SUI) 1,980 1510 1.31
15 (14) Gael Monfils (FRA) 1,935 1475 1.31
16 (15) Fernando Gonzalez (CHI) 1,885 1420 1.33
17 (20) Tomas Berdych (CZE) 1,805 1215 1.49
18 (16) Fernando Verdasco (ESP) 1,710 1415 1.21
19 (17) Robin Soderling (SWE) 1,695 1325 1.28
20 (19) Igor Andreev (RUS) 1,690 1245 1.36
21 (21) Tommy Robredo (ESP) 1,670 1195 1.40
22 (24) Mardy Fish (USA) 1,565 1165 1.34
23 (27) Radek Stepanek (CZE) 1,520 1130 1.35
24 (26) Ivo Karlovic (CRO) 1,505 1140 1.32
25 (30) Feliciano Lopez (ESP) 1,470 1005 1.46
26 (25) Richard Gasquet (FRA) 1,445 1160 1.25
27 (29) Marat Safin (RUS) 1,395 1025 1.36
28 (33) Rainer Schuettler (GER) 1,342 942 1.42
29 (23) Marin Cilic (CRO) 1,295 1175 1.10
30 (38) Nicolas Kiefer (GER) 1,295 885 1.46
31 (32) Mikhail Youzhny (RUS) 1,285 985 1.30
32 (22) Dmitry Tursunov (RUS) 1,260 1180 1.07
33 (28) Philipp Kohlschreiber (GER) 1,250 1115 1.12
34 (40) Michael Llodra (FRA) 1,220 860 1.42
35 (39) Sam Querrey (USA) 1,200 870 1.38
36 (35) Andreas Seppi (ITA) 1,165 910 1.28
37 (36) Mario Ancic (CRO) 1,125 900 1.25
38 (37) Jarkko Nieminen (FIN) 1,110 895 1.24
39 (31) Paul-Henri Mathieu (FRA) 1,075 1000 1.08
40 (41) Simone Bolelli (ITA) 1,056 843 1.25
41 (61) Steve Darcis (BEL) 1,032 681 1.52
42 (48) Jose Acasuso (ARG) 1,015 760 1.34
43 (34) Jurgen Melzer (AUT) 1,013 939 1.08
44 (57) Viktor Troicki (SRB) 993 690 1.44
45 (53) Ernests Gulbis (LAT) 965 719 1.34
46 (56) Marcel Granollers (ESP) 945 692 1.37
47 (43) Julien Benneteau (FRA) 925 804 1.15
48 (42) Carlos Moya (ESP) 900 840 1.07
49 (45) Albert Montanes (ESP) 900 787 1.14
50 (46) Juan Monaco (ARG) 895 785 1.14
51 (50) Victor Hanescu (ROU) 890 743 1.20
52 (47) Igor Kunitsyn (RUS) 888 781 1.14
53 (51) Robby Ginepri (USA) 870 740 1.18
54 (59) Florent Serra (FRA) 853 687 1.24
55 (49) Janko Tipsarevic (SRB) 840 750 1.12
56 (54) Marc Gicquel (FRA) 838 714 1.17
57 (58) Eduardo Schwank (ARG) 837 690 1.21
58 (55) Juan-Carlo Ferrero (ESP) 835 705 1.18
59 (63) Kei Nishikori (JPN) 828 640 1.29
60 (52) Fabrice Santoro (FRA) 818 726 1.13
61 (62) Guillermo Garcia-Lopez (ESP) 785 646 1.22
62 (60) Agustin Calleri (ARG) 780 685 1.14
63 (82) Tommy Haas (GER) 770 525 1.47
64 (64) Yen-Hsun Lu (TPE) 757 622 1.22
65 (65) Teimuraz Gabashvili (RUS) 753 613 1.23
66 (70) Bobby Reynolds (USA) 743 572 1.30
67 (44) Ivan Ljubicic (CRO) 710 790 0.90
68 (72) Potito Starace (ITA) 706 564 1.25
69 (67) Lleyton Hewitt (AUS) 700 605 1.16
70 (84) Kristof Vliegen (BEL) 692 509 1.36
71 (76) Vincent Spadea (USA) 690 549 1.26
72 (71) Martin Vassallo-Arguello (ARG) 687 572 1.20
73 (68) Oscar Hernandez (ESP) 684 584 1.17
74 (86) Nicolas Lapentti (ECU) 668 502 1.33
75 (69) Christophe Rochus (BEL) 666 578 1.15
76 (83) Denis Gremelmayr (GER) 664 518 1.28
77 (74) Ivan Navarro-Pastor (ESP) 658 554 1.19
78 (99) Ivo Minar (CZE) 657 475 1.38
79 (77) Nicolas Massu (CHI) 654 545 1.20
80 (95) Gilles Muller (LUX) 653 478 1.37
81 (79) Guillermo Canas (ARG) 648 543 1.19
82 (66) Philipp Petzschner (GER) 647 606 1.07
83 (85) Thomaz Bellucci (BRZ) 640 508 1.26
84 (93) Arnaud Clement (FRA) 639 480 1.33
85 (78) Diego Junqueira (ARG) 638 544 1.17
86 (88) Fabio Fognini (ITA) 638 493 1.29
87 (81) Jan Hernych (CZE) 636 534 1.19
88 (89) Andrey Golubev (KAZ) 634 488 1.30
89 (94) Nicolas Mahut (FRA) 625 480 1.30
90 (90) Daniel Gimeno-Traver (ESP) 617 488 1.26
91 (97) Robert Kendrick (USA) 607 478 1.27
92 (75) Jeremy Chardy (FRA) 606 553 1.10
93 (92) Sergiy Stakhovsky (UKR) 601 483 1.24
94 (91) Roko Karanusic (CRO) 600 487 1.23
95 (87) Marcos Daniel (BRZ) 596 498 1.20
96 (96) Chris Guccione (AUS) 594 478 1.24
97 (73) Nicolas Devilder (FRA) 587 561 1.05
98 (80) Mischa Zverev (GER) 585 535 1.09
99 (98) Marcos Baghdatis (CYP) 555 475 1.17
100 (100) Alberto Martin (ESP) 531 473 1.12

amirbachar
01-02-2009, 03:53 PM
Here is a list ordered by precentage:


01 (01) Rafael Nadal (ESP) 11,915 6675 1.79
02 (03) Novak Djokovic (SRB) 9,145 5295 1.73
06 (08) Andy Roddick (USA) 3,345 1970 1.70
03 (02) Roger Federer (SUI) 8,980 5305 1.69
13 (18) Nicolas Almagro (ESP) 2,025 1270 1.59
09 (11) David Nalbandian (ARG) 2,720 1725 1.58
05 (05) Nikolay Davydenko (RUS) 4,255 2715 1.57
08 (09) Juan-Martin Del Potro (ARG) 3,040 1945 1.56
07 (06) Jo-Wilfried Tsonga (FRA) 3,195 2050 1.56
11 (12) David Ferrer (ESP) 2,630 1695 1.55
04 (04) Andy Murray (GBR) 5,735 3720 1.54
41 (61) Steve Darcis (BEL) 1,032 681 1.52
17 (20) Tomas Berdych (CZE) 1,805 1215 1.49
63 (82) Tommy Haas (GER) 770 525 1.47
30 (38) Nicolas Kiefer (GER) 1,295 885 1.46
25 (30) Feliciano Lopez (ESP) 1,470 1005 1.46
44 (57) Viktor Troicki (SRB) 993 690 1.44
28 (33) Rainer Schuettler (GER) 1,342 942 1.42
34 (40) Michael Llodra (FRA) 1,220 860 1.42
21 (21) Tommy Robredo (ESP) 1,670 1195 1.40
78 (99) Ivo Minar (CZE) 657 475 1.38
35 (39) Sam Querrey (USA) 1,200 870 1.38
80 (95) Gilles Muller (LUX) 653 478 1.37
46 (56) Marcel Granollers (ESP) 945 692 1.37
27 (29) Marat Safin (RUS) 1,395 1025 1.36
70 (84) Kristof Vliegen (BEL) 692 509 1.36
20 (19) Igor Andreev (RUS) 1,690 1245 1.36
12 (10) James Blake (USA) 2,405 1775 1.35
23 (27) Radek Stepanek (CZE) 1,520 1130 1.35
22 (24) Mardy Fish (USA) 1,565 1165 1.34
45 (53) Ernests Gulbis (LAT) 965 719 1.34
10 (07) Gilles Simon (FRA) 2,647 1980 1.34
42 (48) Jose Acasuso (ARG) 1,015 760 1.34
84 (93) Arnaud Clement (FRA) 639 480 1.33
74 (86) Nicolas Lapentti (ECU) 668 502 1.33
16 (15) Fernando Gonzalez (CHI) 1,885 1420 1.33
24 (26) Ivo Karlovic (CRO) 1,505 1140 1.32
15 (14) Gael Monfils (FRA) 1,935 1475 1.31
14 (13) Stanislas Wawrinka (SUI) 1,980 1510 1.31
31 (32) Mikhail Youzhny (RUS) 1,285 985 1.30
89 (94) Nicolas Mahut (FRA) 625 480 1.30
88 (89) Andrey Golubev (KAZ) 634 488 1.30
66 (70) Bobby Reynolds (USA) 743 572 1.30
86 (88) Fabio Fognini (ITA) 638 493 1.29
59 (63) Kei Nishikori (JPN) 828 640 1.29
76 (83) Denis Gremelmayr (GER) 664 518 1.28
36 (35) Andreas Seppi (ITA) 1,165 910 1.28
19 (17) Robin Soderling (SWE) 1,695 1325 1.28
91 (97) Robert Kendrick (USA) 607 478 1.27
90 (90) Daniel Gimeno-Traver (ESP) 617 488 1.26
83 (85) Thomaz Bellucci (BRZ) 640 508 1.26
71 (76) Vincent Spadea (USA) 690 549 1.26
40 (41) Simone Bolelli (ITA) 1,056 843 1.25
68 (72) Potito Starace (ITA) 706 564 1.25
37 (36) Mario Ancic (CRO) 1,125 900 1.25
26 (25) Richard Gasquet (FRA) 1,445 1160 1.25
93 (92) Sergiy Stakhovsky (UKR) 601 483 1.24
96 (96) Chris Guccione (AUS) 594 478 1.24
54 (59) Florent Serra (FRA) 853 687 1.24
38 (37) Jarkko Nieminen (FIN) 1,110 895 1.24
94 (91) Roko Karanusic (CRO) 600 487 1.23
65 (65) Teimuraz Gabashvili (RUS) 753 613 1.23
64 (64) Yen-Hsun Lu (TPE) 757 622 1.22
61 (62) Guillermo Garcia-Lopez (ESP) 785 646 1.22
57 (58) Eduardo Schwank (ARG) 837 690 1.21
18 (16) Fernando Verdasco (ESP) 1,710 1415 1.21
72 (71) Martin Vassallo-Arguello (ARG) 687 572 1.20
79 (77) Nicolas Massu (CHI) 654 545 1.20
51 (50) Victor Hanescu (ROU) 890 743 1.20
95 (87) Marcos Daniel (BRZ) 596 498 1.20
81 (79) Guillermo Canas (ARG) 648 543 1.19
87 (81) Jan Hernych (CZE) 636 534 1.19
77 (74) Ivan Navarro-Pastor (ESP) 658 554 1.19
58 (55) Juan-Carlo Ferrero (ESP) 835 705 1.18
53 (51) Robby Ginepri (USA) 870 740 1.18
56 (54) Marc Gicquel (FRA) 838 714 1.17
85 (78) Diego Junqueira (ARG) 638 544 1.17
73 (68) Oscar Hernandez (ESP) 684 584 1.17
99 (98) Marcos Baghdatis (CYP) 555 475 1.17
69 (67) Lleyton Hewitt (AUS) 700 605 1.16
75 (69) Christophe Rochus (BEL) 666 578 1.15
47 (43) Julien Benneteau (FRA) 925 804 1.15
49 (45) Albert Montanes (ESP) 900 787 1.14
50 (46) Juan Monaco (ARG) 895 785 1.14
62 (60) Agustin Calleri (ARG) 780 685 1.14
52 (47) Igor Kunitsyn (RUS) 888 781 1.14
60 (52) Fabrice Santoro (FRA) 818 726 1.13
100 (100) Alberto Martin (ESP) 531 473 1.12
33 (28) Philipp Kohlschreiber (GER) 1,250 1115 1.12
55 (49) Janko Tipsarevic (SRB) 840 750 1.12
29 (23) Marin Cilic (CRO) 1,295 1175 1.10
92 (75) Jeremy Chardy (FRA) 606 553 1.10
98 (80) Mischa Zverev (GER) 585 535 1.09
43 (34) Jurgen Melzer (AUT) 1,013 939 1.08
39 (31) Paul-Henri Mathieu (FRA) 1,075 1000 1.08
48 (42) Carlos Moya (ESP) 900 840 1.07
32 (22) Dmitry Tursunov (RUS) 1,260 1180 1.07
82 (66) Philipp Petzschner (GER) 647 606 1.07
97 (73) Nicolas Devilder (FRA) 587 561 1.05
67 (44) Ivan Ljubicic (CRO) 710 790 0.90



Why do you think the players with low ratio have low ratio?
I simply can't find a reasonable explanation.

duong
01-02-2009, 03:57 PM
I made the parsing and calculations (points with new system, old points, percentage).
The average percentage for the top 100 is 1.29.
It means the points from 2008 will be value more than 1.5 times the points from 2009 (on average).
[/CODE]

Only a precision : the ratio 1.4 I gave didn't take into account zero-pointers which were given by El Burro for not respecting the "commitments".

Moreover, it would not have been a huge problem for the ATP to multiply the points by 1.4 as most of the points given in the previous system (at least for the ATP tournament) were multiples of 5, then there would have been no big problem about "round values" :

because

5 X 1.4 = 7 exactly

For the challengers they would have had to calculate "round values", which could have modified the order of the rankings a little bit (for instance 21 X 1.4 = 29.4 ... then they could have given as a round value)

duong
01-02-2009, 04:00 PM
Why do you think the players with low ratio have low ratio?
I simply can't find a reasonable explanation.

The explanations are a little bit what we have already said :

the players who win more tournaments or reach the quarterfinals of the GS or MS have better ratios.

And more generally the players who took more part in Masters Series.

The ratios are also a little bit lower for the challengers.

Hence the ratios tend to decrease with the rankings.

amirbachar
01-02-2009, 08:34 PM
The explanations are a little bit what we have already said :

the players who win more tournaments or reach the quarterfinals of the GS or MS have better ratios.

And more generally the players who took more part in Masters Series.

The ratios are also a little bit lower for the challengers.

Hence the ratios tend to decrease with the rankings.

Yeah, but I mean how come Darcis and Almagro have such a good ratio? What makes them go up so much and not other players?

Horatio Caine
01-02-2009, 09:08 PM
Yeah, but I mean how come Darcis and Almagro have such a good ratio? What makes them go up so much and not other players?

Because they both managed to actually win at the higher "500" level. Almagro did even better by producing a few more solid results at "Masters 1000" and Grand Slam level.

amirbachar
01-03-2009, 05:18 PM
Since the points from 2008 will be worth 1*5 times the points from 2009, here is a distorted ranking, that gives more points for later results (updated until October 2008):


distroted real
1 8086 1 6700 Nadal
2 6535 2 5305 Federer
3 6411 3 5295 Djokovic
4 4856 4 3780 Murray
5 3480 5 2850 Davydenko
6 2784 7 2165 Simon
7 2726 6 2225 Roddick
8 2592 9 1978 Del Potro
9 2531 8 2050 Tsonga
10 2274 12 1800 Nalbandian
11 2263 10 1875 Blake
12 2134 11 1825 Ferrer
13 2023 13 1620 Verdasco
14 1893 16 1483 Monfils
15 1842 14 1514 Fernando Gonzalez
16 1804 17 1460 Söderling
17 1791 15 1510 Wawrinka
18 1717 18 1400 Andreev
19 1613 19 1308 Berdych
20 1540 22 1250 Gasquet
21 1536 21 1250 Cilic
22 1536 23 1245 Robredo
23 1498 24 1216 Tursunov
24 1492 20 1305 Almagro
25 1453 25 1210 Fish
26 1409 27 1155 Karlovic
27 1386 26 1171 Stepanek
28 1362 28 1140 Kohlschreiber
29 1321 29 1105 Mathieu
30 1314 30 1050 Safin
31 1262 32 1005 Feliciano Lopez
32 1244 34 994 Schüttler
33 1192 33 1003 Seppi
34 1179 35 959 Melzer
35 1169 31 1030 Youzhny
36 1122 36 940 Nieminen
37 1092 41 885 Kiefer
38 1083 39 895 Moya
39 1065 37 900 Ancic
40 1065 42 882 Bolelli
41 1047 40 890 Querrey
42 1035 43 845 Montanes
43 1020 48 794 Kunitsyn
44 1006 38 899 Llodra
45 984 45 820 Benneteau
46 967 46 814 Tipsarevic
47 964 50 743 Hanescu
48 956 44 835 Monaco
49 926 49 783 Acasuso
50 910 47 798 Ljubicic
51 905 52 734 Santoro
52 900 51 740 Ginepri
53 898 55 715 Troicki
54 885 54 719 Gulbis
55 866 60 702 Serra
56 862 53 720 Granollers
57 854 57 711 Schwank
58 852 56 714 Gicquel
59 846 59 703 Darcis
60 815 63 661 Lu
61 803 58 705 Ferrero
62 794 61 685 Calleri
63 792 62 672 Garcia-Lopez
64 791 65 647 Gabashvili
65 783 66 641 Hernandez
66 777 70 606 Petzschner
67 776 64 653 Starace
68 773 67 640 Nishikori
69 752 73 583 Vassallo Arguello
70 751 69 607 Reynolds
71 737 68 620 Canas
72 730 72 593 Christophe Rochus
73 702 79 549 Hernych
74 695 75 563 Massu
75 694 74 574 Spadea
76 689 80 548 Junqueira
77 687 71 605 Hewitt
78 687 76 561 Devilder
79 684 78 553 Chardy
80 680 81 535 Zverev
81 677 77 554 Navarro
82 669 82 533 Minar
83 643 92 501 Roitman
84 638 83 525 Haas
85 636 96 488 Golubev
86 631 89 503 Martin
87 628 90 502 Dabul
88 627 97 486 Kendrick
89 625 85 514 Vliegen
90 625 86 512 Gimeno-Traver
91 623 84 518 Gremelmayr
92 621 99 485 Sela
93 612 98 485 Istomin
94 608 91 502 Nicolas Lapentti
95 608 95 493 Karanusic
96 603 93 498 Daniel
97 602 104 478 Muller
98 601 88 503 Mahut
99 600 87 508 Bellucci
100 594 101 482 Andujar
101 592 102 480 Clement
102 591 94 493 Fognini
103 589 100 483 Stakhovsky
104 580 110 457 Lee
105 575 114 453 Capdeville
106 573 108 465 Gil
107 567 106 471 Anderson
108 565 111 457 Odesnik
109 561 113 454 Andreas Beck
110 561 117 435 Phau
111 560 103 478 Guccione
112 557 116 438 Kim
113 556 107 470 Volandri
114 552 105 475 Baghdatis
115 549 115 447 Alves
116 547 109 459 Korolev
117 545 118 435 Soeda
118 543 120 431 Ramirez Hidalgo
119 539 112 456 Horna
120 524 124 405 Koellerer
121 509 121 420 Ventura
122 504 122 415 Olivier Rochus
123 501 125 394 Greul
124 494 123 408 Vanek
125 477 126 393 Bohli
126 476 119 433 Haase
127 474 130 370 Mannarino
128 471 129 376 Mayer
129 470 133 365 Crivoi
130 470 131 369 Dancevic
131 469 128 386 Cipolla
132 465 134 363 Maximo Gonzalez
133 462 127 387 Becker
134 447 132 367 Berrer
135 447 135 360 Levine
136 430 139 335 Bozoljac
137 429 138 343 Young
138 413 137 358 Johansson
139 412 136 358 Delic
140 407 140 327 Isner
141 397 142 314 Patience
142 387 149 295 Elgin
143 379 145 303 Karol Beck
144 377 144 306 Warburg
145 374 143 310 Cuevas
146 372 150 293 Ouanna
147 368 152 286 Montcourt
148 368 151 291 Brands
149 365 146 301 Stadler
150 361 147 300 Peya
151 356 148 296 Kukushkin
152 356 156 280 Riba
153 354 153 284 Machado
154 353 155 283 Udomchoke
155 352 141 315 Chela
156 350 161 269 Tenconi
157 341 166 257 Bogomolov Jr.
158 340 154 283 De Voest
159 340 162 268 Giraldo
160 339 157 276 Luczak
161 332 163 265 Roger-Vasselin
162 328 159 271 Pless
163 324 168 256 Dorsch
164 322 160 269 Brzezicki
165 321 164 264 Pashanski
166 320 167 257 Snobel
167 314 172 250 Hocevar
168 313 174 248 Evans
169 312 170 254 Hartfield
170 308 158 275 Berlocq
171 306 165 263 Malisse
172 304 176 239 Huta Galung
173 304 175 247 Recouderc
174 299 169 255 Prodon
175 295 180 232 Munoz-De La Nava
176 294 179 235 Decoud
177 293 177 238 Lopez Jaen
178 289 178 235 Cruciat
179 289 182 229 Santos
180 288 173 248 Björkman
181 287 186 226 Schukin
182 286 187 225 Sidorenko
183 283 200 212 Zemlja
184 281 181 229 Falla
185 278 184 227 Rosol
186 276 194 215 Ouahab
187 275 171 251 Grosjean
188 274 190 222 Ram
189 274 199 212 Zeballos
190 272 185 226 Dlouhy
191 271 189 224 Bogdanovic
192 270 183 227 Ferreiro
193 268 195 215 Puerta
194 268 205 206 Devvarman
195 265 191 221 Rehnquist
196 263 188 224 Ascione
197 263 203 207 Goodall
198 262 201 210 Ball
199 257 209 198 Kubot
200 256 193 216 Sirianni
201 256 198 213 Smeets
202 255 192 220 Koubek
203 253 197 213 Mello
204 250 206 203 Vicente
205 248 196 213 Marrero
206 246 211 196 Amritraj
207 246 218 185 Gregorc
208 245 214 190 Sweeting
209 244 204 207 Guez
210 243 210 197 Polansky
211 243 202 210 El Aynaoui
212 242 208 200 Kudryavtsev
213 239 222 183 Giovanni Lapentti
214 238 215 186 Fischer
215 237 207 201 Lorenzi
216 237 213 191 Souza
217 233 212 192 Jenkins
218 230 216 186 Ilhan
219 227 223 181 Petrazzuolo
220 225 227 174 Crugnola
221 224 221 184 Slanar
222 220 217 185 Galvani
223 219 228 174 Pospisil
224 219 219 185 Lisnard
225 219 230 173 Ghem
226 216 224 177 Stoppini
227 214 229 173 Flock
228 214 234 165 Estrella
229 214 220 184 Miranda
230 213 226 176 Bachinger
231 212 232 166 Bastl
232 212 225 177 Yani
233 211 235 164 Kindlmann
234 211 240 161 Di Mauro
235 209 231 167 Marchenko
236 205 248 154 Alund
237 205 233 166 Naso
238 203 238 162 Meffert
239 203 243 158 Kamke
240 202 237 163 Santiago Gonzalez
241 201 236 164 Ungur
242 201 242 159 Russell
243 197 245 156 Dutra Da Silva
244 195 244 156 De Chaunac
245 195 239 162 Vemic
246 193 241 160 Olejniczak
247 190 249 154 De Bakker
248 189 250 154 Levy
249 186 247 155 Marc Lopez
250 180 246 156 Menendez

fast_clay
01-04-2009, 09:08 AM
Top shelf thread.

Essential reading for any ATP exec.

kalisita
01-04-2009, 09:17 AM
Top shelf thread.

Essential reading for any ATP exec.

ATP Ad for Execs: Reading Not Required. Inquisitive minds need not apply.

steven
01-05-2009, 06:06 AM
And this is potentially a big problem for the new system...effectively condemning those with more limited talent to a life in the doldrums, whereas, previously, it might have allowed a player whose true ranking is outside top 150, for example, to enjoy a short stint in the top 75-100, at the peak of his playing ability (through results largely obtained in challengers). The result of this might be that such players give up on a tennis career earlier than they could have done pre-2009, which, in the cases of the more struggling tennis nations, could be potentially disastrous in their efforts to develop new talent etc.

I knew I'd seen this somewhere! It's been quoted in an article about the new ranking system in the Times today - http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/tennis/article5448559.ece - it's good to see at least one national non-tennis specific paper brave enough to try to explain this to their readers, not that it's easy to do in a single newspaper column!

scoobs
01-05-2009, 07:26 AM
No but Neil Harman is one of the better writers out there. You can't have a healthy top of the game unless the lower ranked players have opportunities to climb to the top. Those opportunities have been further restricted in 2009.

Action Jackson
01-05-2009, 08:49 AM
Neil Harman has a clue, but honestly they are fucking with something that shouldn't have been altered and if they were going to alter the points, then the changes should have been the same across the board.

When the current top ones go down, will they want another change to the rankings.

duong
01-05-2009, 08:58 AM
No but Neil Harman is one of the better writers out there. You can't have a healthy top of the game unless the lower ranked players have opportunities to climb to the top. Those opportunities have been further restricted in 2009.

I really think that you miss the key point when focusing on challengers and futures,

the key-point about the new system is the importance of the ATP-500 tournaments, and also the emphasis on the victory (a victory will be worth as much as final+semi-final, which I think is too much).

Also what will be the biggest problem this year about understanding the new system is that they overweighted the 2008 points by multiplying as much as 2 instead of a lower ratio (I suggested 1.4).

I will post a more complete thread about that today, I've finished all of my calculations.

Action Jackson
01-05-2009, 09:22 AM
No need to post a new thread, it has something to do with the impact of the ranking system, then it can discussed in here.

Stupid fucking names as well I am not going to call them 500 or 250.1 or the like.

If it makes it harder for players to come through the challengers and futures, then it's not a good thing, considering the system is meant to be in continous flow. Unless they are from a major country, then players from small nations are going to find it even more difficult, without a lack of a big federation behind them.

Might as well just have a top 50 and fuck the rest them off tour.

duong
01-05-2009, 09:42 AM
No need to post a new thread, it has something to do with the impact of the ranking system, then it can discussed in here.

Sorry, it's a problem about my English, I dindt' mean a new thread but a new post of course :banghead:

duong
01-05-2009, 11:08 AM
After calculating all or most of the changes of the new system (including world team cup, Davis cup, ratios ...), I'm going to try to illustrate the potential effects of this new ranking system with some precise examples.

But it's important for me to say first that

this exercise is a little bit artificial as there were no real ATP-500 tournaments in 2008 and the new rules are going to really encourage the best players (and the others) to take part in these ATP-500 tournaments.

There were International Series (IS) Gold tournaments, half of which are now ATP-500 tournaments, but the interest of players for these was not as big as now : less difference in points with other ATP-tournaments, no obligation for the top-30 to play at least 4 or them, and also the top-30 could count more than 2 "lower tournaments" in their rankings.

EDIT : from Memphis, Acapulco and Rotterdam's entry-lists, it doesn't seem that the new system changed anything to the participation of the top-30 to these ATP500 tournaments.

On the opposite side, Doha and Marseille, which have been downgraded as any "minor" "ATP-250 tournaments", did not suffer from this downgrading according to their entry-list.

And the entry-lists in Brisbane and Sydney, which are also "only" ATP-250 tournaments, are also great (8 and 12 players from the top-30 in these tournaments, and a last direct acceptance around 50-60 like Rotterdam !!)

Hence the main hypothesis which has to be made for El Burro's and my exercise about applying the 2009 ranking points to the 2008 tournaments, is to guess which tournaments in 2008 were "quite equivalent" (but not completely equivalent) to ATP-500 tournaments.

Another major hypothesis is about how to apply the new rankings points for the Olympic Games which were a special tournament in 2008.

Here is what I decided.

In 2009 there will be 11 ATP-500 tournaments and here are the 10 equivalents I chose in 2008 :

- Rotterdam ... already existed in 2008 in the same period and was an IS Gold tournament (won by Llodra)

- Memphis ... idem (won by Darcis)

- Acapulco ... idem (won by Almagro)

- Dubai ... idem (won by Roddick)

- Barcelona ... idem (won by Nadal)

- Hamburg on clay in july ... in 2008 there were two IS Gold tournaments on clay in july : Stuttgart had a better draw than Kitzbuhel then I considered Stuttgart was the best equivalent of what might be Hamburg in 2009 (Stuttgart was won by Del Potro)

- Washington before Canada open and Cinci ... 2008 was special in that period because there were the Olympic Games which I considered as an ATP-500 tournament but with more points (800 points for the winner) ... as for Monte-Carlo (1000 points for the winner). Washington in 2008 was a small tournament which happened the same week as the Olympic Games. Hence I didn't consider Washington 2008 as an "equivalent ATP-500" (El Burro did that which affected Roddick's or Troicki or Haas's ranking for instance) but rather gave 250 points to the winner as an ATP-250 tournament. Yet, I considered that the top-30 players who had played either the Olympic Games or Washington had added one tournament to their commitment for 4 ATP-500 tournaments.
As for the ranking points for the Olympic Games, I observed that in 2008, the ATP gave approximately 4/5 of the points of a Masters Series for the Olympic Games (for instance 400 points for winning the OG comparing with 500 points for winning a Masters Series). Hence, I applied the same 4/5 ratio to the 2009-MAsters Series 1000 tournaments to determin the ranking points for the OG : 800 points for the winner, 480 points for the finalist, 348 points for the bronze medal, 228 points for the 4th, 144 points for a quarter-finalist, 60 points for a R16, 30 points for a R32.

- in 2009, Tokyo and Beijing are both ATP-500 tournaments which happen the same week ... in 2008 Tokyo was an IS gold tournament, but Beijing was a "small tournament". Moreover, most of the players who took part in Beijing also took part in Tokyo in 2008 (since they were two consecutive weeks) and they will not be able to cumulate them in 2009. Hence I only considered Tokyo as an "equivalent ATP-500 tournament" in 2008, not Beijing. Tokyo was won by Berdych in 2008.

- in 2009, Basel and Valencia are both ATP-500 tournaments which happen the same week. In 2008, Basel was not an IS gold tournament, but because of its high prize money, it gave as many points as an IS gold tournament. Then I considered Basel in 2008 as an "equivalent ATP-500 tournament" (won by Federer). Valencia on indoors is a totally new tournament ... I didn't consider Valencia 2008 on clay as an equivalent as El Burro did (hence some differences between us for Ferrer or Robredo). Yet, there was another IS gold tournament in 2008 on indoors two weeks before Basel, which was Vienna ... then I considered Vienna as an "equivalent ATP-500 tournament" in 2008 (won by Petzschner) ... hence some differences in our rankings between El Burro and me for Petzschner or Monfils.

To follow on ... ;)

duong
01-05-2009, 05:18 PM
Here are the results now :)

They are in the attached word file if you can look at it.

They concern a list of 121 players including the first 112 players except Marcos Daniel, Rokko Karanusic and Frederico Gil.

And now some illustrations of the effect of the new system :

- Djokovic would go ahead of Federer : there are two reasons for that, one is that the weight of the Masters Cup is increased in the new system (all points multiplied by 2),
the other one is that Federer pays the price of his finals lost in the Grand Slams (RG and Wimbledon) and Masters Series (Monte-Carlo and Hamburg) (all of them lost to Nadal :) ), whereas Djokovic won two finals in Masters series : as a matter of fact, the weight of the victories in the finals has been much increased in the new system. For instance, in the new system, one Win is worth more than one Final + one Semi-Final. I believe it's too much difference, especially when you lose the final 9/7 in the 5th set ... but that's the way it is ... and please note than this new rule might be in favour of Federer in 2009 ;)

- 7 players who were in the top-30 in the end of 2007 lose a lot of rankings because they earned too many points in ATP-250 tournaments (Simon -3, Verdasco -6, Robredo -8, Mathieu -10, Monaco -16, Ljubicic -19, Baghdatis -19) ... whereas in the new system they cannot count more than 2 ATP-250 tournaments in their ranking. You can see the effect of that rule in the final colum of the table.
However, it's clear that in 2009, the players who were in the top-30 in the end of 2008 will know this new rule and will take care to concentrate their efforts on ATP-500 tournaments.

This "4 ATP-500 rule" will not be easy for these "top-30 players" though as they will have to count 4 ATP-500 results in 9 weeks (since Tokyo and Beijing, Basel and Valencia, Dubai and Acapulco happen the same week). And in february, considering the jetlag and the surfaces, I believe only Rotterdam and Dubai can be easily played together. Also, if players want to play in Washington, they will have to play 3 weeks wonsecutively in Washington, Canada and Cincinnatti. And for claycourt specialists, they could have to play consecutively Monte-Carlo, Barcelona and Roma.

Because they don't only have to play 4 of them, they also have to win some matches there to earn some points (a loss in the 1st round gives no point). Then of course these tournaments give a lot of points, but this rule is quite restrictive for them.

For instance, according to his current program, Federer should only play 3 of these tournaments (Dubai, Tokyo and Basel) ... and then count a zero and maybe lose some "bonus pool".

To follow on ;)

Deivid23
01-05-2009, 07:25 PM
Good effort Jez :yeah:

amirbachar
01-05-2009, 08:11 PM
Great work, doung.

BTW, I think that the average ratio is more interesting than the ratio between the sum of points (what you called weighted average).
That's because I think it is more important what happens for most players and not mainly for the top.
The average ratio is 1.304960361.
The ratio between the sum of points is 1.396605265.

Edit: You have mistakes in the ratio column, please check what is the source of the problem and see if that happened in other places too.

duong
01-05-2009, 10:38 PM
Edit: You have mistakes in the ratio column, please check what is the source of the problem and see if that happened in other places too.

You are right : the colum "ratio" was wrong : the file attached is corrected.


Great work, doung.

BTW, I think that the average ratio is more interesting than the ratio between the sum of points (what you called weighted average).
That's because I think it is more important what happens for most players and not mainly for the top.
The average ratio is 1.304960361.
The ratio between the sum of points is 1.396605265.

Yes you are also right : the majority of the players are concerned about ratios lower than 1.3 ("simple average").
The advantage of the "weighted average" (1.4) is only that it does not depend on the share of the points between players : if the levels were more uniform among the players, it would not change. But well this is rather mathematical.

More importantly, as I already said, the ratio 1.4 could have been applied by the ATP with few problems about unround numbers (at least no problems of this kind for the ATP tournaments), then without changing any rankings.

Horatio Caine
01-06-2009, 12:23 AM
New rankings system: unfair and confusing

Many thanks, Mr. Harman, for adding your voice, by way of an insightful article, to this issue/debate! :D

I guess that some of us are wondering what some of the players (after all, they are the ones DIRECTLY affected by this) are up to...we haven't seen much, in writing (e.g. from press coverage) about any potential dissatisfaction from within the ranks. Players like Peter Luczak and Michael Berrer, who, incidentally, are on the Player Council (!!) don't appear to have spoken up...their respective rankings (#155, #134) put them right in the thick of this!

What do some of the 2008 season-ending top 30 players think about this new rule being imposed upon them (that they must count 8 Masters "1000" events towards their 2009 ranking)? Take, for example, Fish and Lopez...two players who are perhaps more likely to struggle in maintaining their current rankings all season, meaning that they potentially miss the cut for Masters event(s). The new rule implies that, in such circumstances, they'd receive a "0 pointer" (?), when, pre-2009, they might have been able to fall back on a solid "optional" result instead (e.g. a SF in a lower-tier ATP event would roughly equate to a R3 finish at a Masters event). How would they feel about this?

How do the more injury-prone players (e.g. Almagro, Soderling, Stepanek and Safin) feel about this rule? On the one hand, the ranking system hasn't changed in that a player missing a Masters "1000" event (for which he had made the cut) through injury would count a "0 pointer" towards his ranking. But the problem here is the commitment to the 8 Masters "1000" events...pre-2009, a player's ranking might have dropped low enough for him to miss the cut for future Masters events, thus affording him a potentially quicker recovery back up the rankings (courtesy of being able to count a few more optionals results towards his ranking). Under the new system...if a player's ranking has dropped below the cut for future Masters "1000" events to which he is supposedly committed, doesn't that mean that he could, potentially, incur "0 pointers" unnecessarily, thus pushing the prospect of a serious comeback into the following season? For the more ageing players (e.g. Safin, Stepanek), this, surely, isn't a welcome move?

If the flaws we are identifying are real, isn't this just a little disturbing?

On the other hand, if I, and others, are at fault with our observations, and have completely misunderstood the new ranking system...isn't this a bit of a slap in the face to the "masterminds" of the ATP, who, certainly at one stage, were trying to make the Tour more accessible to the wider public? The majority didn't understand the pre-2009 ranking system (even, the relatively simple Race ranking system!), but the more serious tennis fans did...now, even (some of) the most hardcore tennis nuts are left scratching their heads!


Got a bit carried there... :o But, if I may comment on the article?

Also, it may well become a good deal tougher for the up-and-comers from smaller tennis nations to make it to the ATP level - because a longer time period to gain the points required means an increased financial burden and that potential talent could be lost at an early age. Paradoxically, it could benefit a nation like Britain whose governing body is desperate to have more players higher up the rankings to strike its targets and has the funds available to send these players to places where others cannot afford to go.

I agree that a nation, such as Britain, could be in a stronger position, in this regard. However, as we're aware, being able to pump huge amounts of money into a "development programme" doesn't necessarily produce top-class tennis players...we need look little further than the achievements (or lack of them) of the LTA (certainly, as regards male tennis), over recent years.

Moreover, the new ranking system appears to be offering greater reward to winners (i.e. finalists, title winners), at all levels...how often can a British player boast even a challenger title win, these days? For a player, such as Alex Bogdanovic, who is more used to QF, SF finishes at challenger events, future entry to the top 100 has just, potentially, become that little more difficult. Now, nearing the age of 25, having been a "journeyman" for some years now, isn't it possible that the thought of "retirement" has come to his mind earlier, now, than it might have done?


What, I ask, of the prospect of enhancing the prize money and ranking points at the lower end of the scale, to tempt more prospective players to give tennis a shot? Would that not be helpful?

That would seem like a much more logical solution! Nadal, Federer, Djokovic, Murray etc are paid exorbitant amounts of money already, and they are the players least in need of a security blanket. If players at the lowest end of the scale are able to cover their travel/accommodation expenses with the prize money on offer, it would at least give some of the more keen/disciplined amongst them a little more time to notch up some potentially career-changing results (...if they were considering quitting). Is it really too much to ask that players often losing early in Futures events, for example, are offered enough prize money to cover a couple of nights B&B accommodation and basic travel to the next national event (e.g. train fare from Birmingham to Manchester), when compared to how willing the ATP appear to be to bolster the bank accounts of the top players by a further six figure cheque?


All this, and the fact that points will be awarded for those participants in Davis Cup world group and Zone One matches from this year, only adds to the discrepancy. I have yet to find any player who believes that it is right to give ATP ranking points for the Davis Cup, it is more of a sop to the ITF which has long sought to protect and enhance its wonderful championship. This, though, is not the way to do it.

Sadly, points are only offered as low as World Group qualifying, at the moment, I believe: http://stevegtennis.com/rankpoints.txt

As concerns the issue of whether a player believes it is right to award points for Davis Cup...maybe the likes of Roddick, Nalbandian, Nadal (all strong performers) etc need their heads examining (if they are some of the players voicing disapproval)!

But, again, this move (to award points) would appear to further benefit the top players, at the expense of the lower-ranked.

amirbachar
01-06-2009, 02:20 AM
What do some of the 2008 season-ending top 30 players think about this new rule being imposed upon them (that they must count 8 Masters "1000" events towards their 2009 ranking)? Take, for example, Fish and Lopez...two players who are perhaps more likely to struggle in maintaining their current rankings all season, meaning that they potentially miss the cut for Masters event(s). The new rule implies that, in such circumstances, they'd receive a "0 pointer" (?), when, pre-2009, they might have been able to fall back on a solid "optional" result instead (e.g. a SF in a lower-tier ATP event would roughly equate to a R3 finish at a Masters event). How would they feel about this?


No, they don't count the Masters in their rankings if they miss the cut.
The only special rule for top-30 is they must include 4 500 tournements in their ranking, but they get automatic entry for 500 tournements regardless of their ranking.

duong
01-06-2009, 07:39 AM
What do some of the 2008 season-ending top 30 players think about this new rule being imposed upon them (that they must count 8 Masters "1000" events towards their 2009 ranking)? Take, for example, Fish and Lopez...two players who are perhaps more likely to struggle in maintaining their current rankings all season, meaning that they potentially miss the cut for Masters event(s). The new rule implies that, in such circumstances, they'd receive a "0 pointer" (?), when, pre-2009, they might have been able to fall back on a solid "optional" result instead (e.g. a SF in a lower-tier ATP event would roughly equate to a R3 finish at a Masters event). How would they feel about this?

How do the more injury-prone players (e.g. Almagro, Soderling, Stepanek and Safin) feel about this rule? On the one hand, the ranking system hasn't changed in that a player missing a Masters "1000" event (for which he had made the cut) through injury would count a "0 pointer" towards his ranking. But the problem here is the commitment to the 8 Masters "1000" events...pre-2009, a player's ranking might have dropped low enough for him to miss the cut for future Masters events, thus affording him a potentially quicker recovery back up the rankings (courtesy of being able to count a few more optionals results towards his ranking). Under the new system...if a player's ranking has dropped below the cut for future Masters "1000" events to which he is supposedly committed, doesn't that mean that he could, potentially, incur "0 pointers" unnecessarily, thus pushing the prospect of a serious comeback into the following season? For the more ageing players (e.g. Safin, Stepanek), this, surely, isn't a welcome move?

From what I understood from the new rulebook :

1. I believe like Amirbachar that the commitment to Masters 1000 events is the same for the 2008-year-end top-30 players and the other players. They are only committed "if they are accepted". And from what I read, the bonus pool is given to the first 12 players in the end of 2009, not depending on the fact they were in the top-30 previous year or not.

2. the only new rule about the "masters 1000 events" is that if a player is accepted on the original entry-list, he can be suspended from another "Masters 1000 event" if he does not take part in the tournament AND is not injured for more than 30 days AND does not comply with the requirements for an on-site withdrawal (medical examination) AND does not take part in promotional activities on site. Then this is mainly a matter of "good willingness" for the player. Anyway, an injured player should have no difficulty to avoid suspension.

duong
01-06-2009, 10:05 AM
I keep on with my illustrations of the impact of the new Ranking rules :

- the impact of the Davis cup has been discussed a lot in the forums : a player could afford a maximum of 625 points through the Davis Cup (if he wins 8 singles matches and his team wins the Davis Cup), a little bit more than for winning an ATP-500 tournament.

It has been said that it was unfair for players from poor nations.

Actually it's not a lot comparing to the implication which the Davis Cup requires : 5-set matches in 4 week-ends in a year, often play doubles, etc ... comparing with an ATP-500 tournament I think it's a big implication.

Moreover, the Davis Cup cannot count in the commitment of the top-30 players to play at least 4 ATP-500 tournaments (for instance Federer could not respect his commitment thanks to the Davis Cup) !

Then I think that these ranking points will not be a real incentive for players to play the Davis Cup (I repeat : 4 week-ends with best of 5 set-matches and a lot of pressure !). The main incentives are rather about their reputation in their country.

To be more precise, the implication of the Davis Cup on the simulation is quite small.

Nalbandian earns 255 points and one rank thanks to that (315 points minus the 60 points he won in the "equivalent-ATP-500-tournament" Olympic Games), Davydenko 185 points, Stepanek, Lopez, Nadal, and Roddick around 80 points (ie around a quarter-final in an ATP-500 tournament).

duong
01-06-2009, 10:14 AM
- The World Team Cup potentially gives 250 points : if you win all of your matches and your team wins the WTC, you earn 250 points, as many points as if you win an ATP-250 tournament.

That's what happened to Soderling in 2008 :

he's up 1 rank in the simulation comparing to his real rankings in the end of 2008, but actually he earns 2 ranks thanks to the world team cup (if not, Berdych would have been in front of him).

Comparing to the Davis Cup, I think it's a better payment because it's only a one-week implication. But of course, this event is organized by the ATP, which is not the case of the Davis Cup :rolleyes: ...

duong
01-06-2009, 10:39 AM
Here are the biggest changes emerging in the simulation :

the most important issue of the new ranking system imo is that results in ATP-500 tournaments are upgraded a lot :

this is really a big change in the tour, not sure that players will feel like going to play to Acapulco for that (even Del Potro doesn't go there :rolleyes: )

but it's quite certain that the ATP-500 tournaments should be much more interesting than were the IS-gold tournaments ... which actually were not able to attract through their ranking points but only through the prize level ... for which tournaments like Doha, Moscow and Saint-Petersburg were more interesting ... and were as interesting for the rankings ! These ones are now downgraded in the rankings.

Even the qualifyings should be much better ! First if you're able to qualify, you get as many points (20) as if you reach the 2nd round of an ATP-250 tournament. Secondly if you go further in an ATP-500 tournament you can get a lot of points.

More precisely, here are the many players who increase much their ranking in the simulation thanks to their results in "equivalent-ATP500 tournaments" :

- Almagro +1 (won Acapulco)
- Berdych +2 (won Tokyo)
- Lopez + 9 (becomes rank 21st), a specialist of these big tournaments ! Final in Dubai, 1/2final in Basel, 1/2final in Vienna (here maybe it's a problem of my simulation that you can cumulate both, as you will not be able to cumulate Basel and Valencia), R16 in Barcelona. Lopez didn't play many tournaments in 2008 but also scored in the Davis Cup and the WTC, which means that the new ranking system is made for him !!
- Gasquet + 2 (final in Stutgart)
- Llodra +6 (won Rotterdam)
- Darcis +17 (won Memphis)
- Granollers +9 (1/4final in Acapulco and R16 in Basel)
- Petzschner +16 (won Vienna)
- Calleri +8 (1/2final in Stuttgart, 1/4final in Acapulco)
- Hernych +14 : interesting case because he had to qualify every time and only reached the 1/4finals once (in Stuttgart) and went through the 1st round twice (Dubai and Vienna), also lost in the 1st round once (Rotterdam).
- Canas +8 : didn't win more than one round in these ATP-500 tournaments but everytime it's worth 1.8 more in the new system !
- Gremelmayr +11 (1/2final in Barcelona)
- Horna +20 (1/2final in Acapulco)
- Andreas Beck +17 is almost the same case as Hernych : he managed to qualify and go through the 1st round in Basel and Stuttgart (I don't think it will be easy to do that in 2009 though)

Action Jackson
01-06-2009, 10:42 AM
It only benefits the top 50.

duong
01-06-2009, 11:11 AM
As I just said,

if the ATP-500 tournaments are now much upgraded in the new rankings, on the opposite, the tournaments which were not IS gold tournaments but had more than 1,000,000 $ prize money (namely Doha, Moscow and Saint-Petersburg) are much downgraded,

since they are considered for the rankings like every small ATP tournament which gives twice less prize money !!

In 2008, they gave as many points as the "smallest" IS-gold tournaments (Tokyo, Memphis, Acapulco, Stuttgart, Kitzbuhel).

In 2009 they will give twice less points than them !

To a lesser extent, the Queens, Halle, Lyon and Stockholm (and to an even lesser extent Marseille and New Haven) will also give less points.

I really think that there should have been at least one ATP-500 tournament on grass (Queens and/or Halle) : I don't know why it was impossible :confused: Probably a business issue.

Anyway, it seems that the fields in the Queens, Halle and Marseille will be nearly as good as last year ;)

Also I include in this category of changes the fact that there's one less "big tournament" on clay in the summer : Stuttgart and Kitzbuhel were both "IS gold tournaments" in july, now there's only Hamburg. Anyway, the draw in Kitzbuhel in 2008 was quite awful for an IS gold tournament :eek:

In the simulation, this appears in the fact that the results in Kitzbuhel give far less points.

Here are the players who lose (a lot of) ranks in the simulation because of that :

- Wawrinka -1 (finalist in Doha)
- Melzer -5 (final in Kitzbuhel)
- Benneteau -5 (final in Lyon, also results in Moscow and Marseille)
- Kunitsyn -10 (won Moscow)
- Starace -7 (semi-final in Kitzbuhel)
- Devilder -7 (1/4final in Kitzbuhel)
- Chardy -17 (results in Moscow and St Petersburg)
- Golubev -12 (final in St Petersburg)

duong
01-06-2009, 11:17 AM
It only benefits the top 50.

mainly but not only (look at the examples Hernych, Gremelmayr, Horna, Beck ...)

Anyway they have to win one round to earn some points with that.

And in terms of rankings, it's difficult to say that "it benefits to the top-50" because it depends "top-50" at which moment ?

From the simulation, I don't have the impression at all that the rankings in the end of 2008 would be nearer to those in the end of 2007 if the new system had been applied.

But of course the simulation doesn't say all, because we don't know so far what the fields will be in all of those tournaments and how hard will be these "ATP500 tournaments",

also how the "top-30 players" will manage to adapt their schedule to these new conditions about the ATP500 tournamentsand also win at least one match in several of these tournaments (remember that they have to count 4 results in ATP500 tournaments ... and the schedule is not easy to do that).

Action Jackson
01-06-2009, 11:19 AM
In other words it makes it more difficult than it already was previously to move through from Futures to Challengers where the majority of players have to go through their grounding and winning matches in this environment, preparing them for the tour itself, by rewarding less points for these events.

The South American challengers run by Petrobras now and Copa Ericsson before were the ones that prepared Coria, Gaudio, Nalbandian, Acasuso, Massa, Calleri, Cañas, Horna, Zabaleta, del Potro, Bellucci and Schwank for the tour, especially when they didn't have the money to travel over to Europe to play events early in their careers, unlike the UK or France they don't have powerful federations or plenty of events to help them through.

The avenue for players who have been injured for a long time and need to come back through the challengers to get some points and form, before their PR's run out are further disadvantaged.

So by concentrating on the top few and forgetting about the rest as Harman points out in his article, yes that makes sense.

duong
01-06-2009, 11:29 AM
In other words it makes it more difficult than it already was previously to move through from Futures to Challengers where the majority of players have to go through their grounding and winning matches in this environment, preparing them for the tour itself, by rewarding less points for these events.

The South American challengers run by Petrobras now and Copa Ericsson before were the ones that prepared Coria, Gaudio, Nalbandian, Acasuso, Massa, Calleri, Cañas, Horna, Zabaleta, del Potro, Bellucci and Schwank for the tour, especially when they didn't have the money to travel over to Europe to play events early in their careers, unlike the UK or France they don't have powerful federations or plenty of events to help them through.

The avenue for players who have been injured for a long time and need to come back through the challengers to get some points and form, before their PR's run out are further disadvantaged.

So by concentrating on the top few and forgetting about the rest as Harman points out in his article, yes that makes sense.

I'm not sure it's so clear about the challengers (in terms of rankings I mean, I don't speak about money for instance ...) :
I will talk about that topic a little bit later.

Anyway, these "ATP-500 tournaments" might also be a new opportunity for these players : it might be easier for them to reach these draws than to reach the Masters Series draws

(EDIT : it's not so clear actually that it would be easier for lower-ranked players to reach the draw in an ATP500 tournament than in a Masters Series as most of the Masters Series have a 56-draw and most of the ATP-500 tournaments will have a 32-draw and the qualifying table for an ATP500 tournament will only be a 16-draw ... in Washington, Barcelona and Hamburg which have a 56-draw it might be easier to qualify)

They might have to try their chance in these "ATP-500 tournaments", including in the qualifyings.

As in the new system, only one big result can do better than a series of results, these players can go through to the top with only one result in one of these big tournaments.

Look at Hernych (qualified 4 times), Andreas Beck (qualified twice), Petzschner (he got a wild card, I think) ...

What's certain is that all of that is a great advantage for American players :rolleyes: who can get a wild-card in Memphis or Washington plus the masters series !

And I'm not sure that the draws in Memphis and Washington will be very difficult (at least so far there are not many commitments in Memphis, and the best players should play 3 weeks in a row to play Washington before Canada and Cincinnatti).

(plus the best American players are now happy that Monte-Carlo is not mandatory anymore)

duong
01-06-2009, 11:39 AM
From the simulation, I don't have the impression at all that the rankings in the end of 2008 would be nearer to those in the end of 2007 if the new system had been applied.

But of course the simulation doesn't say all, because we don't know so far what the fields will be in all of those tournaments and how hard will be these "ATP500 tournaments",
also how the "top-30 players" will manage to adapt their schedule to these new conditions and also win at least one match in several of these tournaments (if not, they get a "zero point").

I have to add something :

in 2009, which means during the transition period,

the fact that the results in 2008 have been doubled and then will be overweighted in the rankings on the whole will for sure delay the improvements in the rankings for the players who make good results in challengers or other tournaments in 2009

... if they made good results in the end of 2008, they will be well rewarded on the opposite !

Action Jackson
01-06-2009, 11:47 AM
The ISG qualies won't help very much considering it will be difficult for those who will get a 0 pointer, which will be the majority to go and make a challenger on the Monday, when many of these events, the qualies won't finish on the Sunday.

duong
01-06-2009, 01:02 PM
The ISG qualies won't help very much considering it will be difficult for those who will get a 0 pointer, which will be the majority to go and make a challenger on the Monday, when many of these events, the qualies won't finish on the Sunday.

Actually, for the ATP-500 tournaments, there will only be two rounds for qualifying, then they could finish the qualies on sunday, why do you think that they would often finish on monday ?

Of course, the fact that there will be only 16 players in qualies for a 32-draw in an ATP-500 tournament (only 3 ATP-500 tournaments will have a 56-draw : Barcelona, Hamburg and Washington) also means that the rank necessary to enter will be quite low.

(besides, losing in the 2nd round of the qualies in an ATP-500 tournament with a 32-draw will give 10 ranking points)

duong
01-06-2009, 04:00 PM
Anyway, more than saying that these changes will benefit to those who have already reached the top, which does not appear from the simulation (those who lose most rankings because of the simulation are players who were in the top-30 in the end of 2007 and could not achieve well enough in the biggest tournaments),

what's really possible is that the innovation of these ATP500 tournaments might generate a higher difference between the quality of the draws in the biggest tournaments (GS, MS, and ATP500) and the other ones (EDIT : it does not appear from the entry-lists of the first tournaments of the year so far),

a kind of "first league".

From the simulation, it's not clear if it will be easier or more difficult to reach or stay in that "first division" : it would rather seem that players who reached the top-30 can fall harder than before if they cannot succeed in that "first league".

But the discrepancy inside the 2nd league is another issue (ATP250 tournaments, challengers and futures) :

on that issue, it's not at all clear comparing to what many people say, insisting a lot on challengers.

Moreover, let me say it frankly :

in recent years (I don't know before), even with the old system, I've been quite surprised by the high stability of the top-50 : not many changes from one year to another (consider for instance players like Santoro or Calleri who managed to stay in the top-50 from one year to another year).

There already seemed to be a kind of "first league" for the top-50 in the recent years.

Young talented players can reach that level of course ... and then usually stay.

But players less talented could not reach a rank better than 60 usually ... which means inside the 2nd league (an exception was Kunitsyn who reached the top-50 in the end of 2008 ... mainly thanks to an isolated result in a big tournament ... as he could maybe do in an ATP500 tournament with the new system).

duong
01-06-2009, 04:27 PM
I will reach that challenger issue in the next posts, but let me first not forget that, as much as for the ATP500 tournaments, the Grand Slams and Masters Series are upgraded in the new system.

Several players would have taken advantage of that heavier weight of the GS and MS in 2008 :

- Fish +5 , who was remarkable in Indian Wells and the US Open
- Schuettler +2 (1/2final in Wimbledon)
- Safin -1 (1/2final Wimbledon) is also a little bit in the same case but loses some points because his final in Moscow was downgraded
- Kiefer +6 (Toronto and Hamburg)
- Gulbis +7 (Roland-Garros and Cincinnatti)
- Haas +7 (1/4finals in Cincinnatti)
- Müller +11 (1/4 finals US Open)
- Clément +6 (1/4finals Wimbledon, also qualified in Canada and Cinci)
- Hyung Taek Lee +9 (Indian Wells)
- also Horna +20, beside his 1/2 final in Acapulco, benefits from his qualifying and 1/8final in Roma


As you can see many of these players who take advantage from this new system are very talented players but who are very inconsistent or play little, but have some "lightenings" of their talent.

For many of them the reason of their inconsistency and their scarce results is that they are quite old ... but if they are fit, you can still see their talent :

this one can be especially expressed in grand slams where they have more motivation and experience.

This kind of players also benefits from this new ranking system since an isolated very big result has more weight than in the previous system.

For instance, I believe that in 2007, Hewitt would also have had great benefit from this new ranking system, considering his few brilliant results in Masters Series and Grand Slams !
It was clear (at least imo) from his scarce results that he deserved better than his ranking at that moment !

Btw, I realize now that this is quite the opposite message from what El Burro said before about Safin or others ... but let me say it again : in the previous system, a player already had to count zero point when he was injured in a Grand Slam or a Masters Series
... and from my impression,if he's really injured, the new system will not oblige him to count more zero-pointers.

But, if he's often injured, he'll be able to get more points with few brilliant results (maybe it's good for Tsonga too btw if he keeps on being often injured).

amirbachar
01-06-2009, 06:28 PM
Moreover, from what I read on the ATP-website FAQ, players can only count the Davis Cup in their points to replace a result in an ATP-500 tournament, and not a zero-pointer !
Which is quite strange by the way : I understand that it cannot replace a penalty-0 pointer (when the player withdraws from the tournament without committing to his obligations) ... but why couldn't it replace a zero-pointer in an ATP-500 tournament related to a defeat in the 1st round ?


zero-pointer is only when a player withdraw or doesn't fulfill his obligations (top 30 needs to play 4 500 tournaments and 1 of them have to be after US Open).
Anyway, If a layer plays only 3 500 tournaments, the rulebook says Davis Cup can replace a 250 tournament too (for example Federer plans for this year).

duong
01-06-2009, 06:42 PM
zero-pointer is only when a player withdraw or doesn't fulfill his obligations (top 30 needs to play 4 500 tournaments and 1 of them have to be after US Open).
Anyway, If a layer plays only 3 500 tournaments, the rulebook says Davis Cup can replace a 250 tournament too (for example Federer plans for this year).

Which page of the rule book please ?

since I saw nothing about that in the rulebook.

Only on the website FAQ :

Q. What are the ranking rules for players who compete in Davis Cup?

A. Davis Cup points will be awarded for the first time in 2009 for World Group and World Group playoff ties only. Points allocated are as part of the 500 point category. Davis Cup does not count towards a player's commitment to the 500 category. The points accumulated in the four ties within the previous 52 weeks can become part of a player's 500 category if:
1. Player has not more than three 500 results within the previous 52 weeks and Davis Cup result(s) is better than lowest best other.
2. Player has four 500 results within the previous 52 weeks and Davis Cup result(s) is better than the lowest 500. Also, 500 0-pointers cannot be replaced.

I have to say that this was not very clear for me as "best other what ?"

and what's the relationship between the zero pointers and the case "when a player has four 500 results" (then no zero pointer) ?

This looked very dark to me : I had a headache trying to understand the logics of these sentence :cuckoo:

But you look more clever than me :

from what I understand, you believe it means :

1. if a player has not more than 3 "ATP-500 results", he cannot replace his ATP-500 zero-pointers but he can replace his best "ATP-250 tournament or challenger" result.

2. if a player has 4 ATP-500 results, he can replace his lowest ATP-500 result.

Yes, suddenly I can guess a logics in this paragraph !!

But what if a player has 3 ATP-500 results and his Davis cup result is better than his 3rd one ? Can he replace this third result ?

And what if he respected his commitment and played at least 4 ATP-500 tournaments but in only 3 tournaments he could win a match and then get some points ? Can't he count the Davis Cup as his 4th best result in that case ? In your mind, this is not a "zero-pointer" ? But yet, it is indeed a result and it gives indeed 0 point, doesn't it ?

And what if he has 4 ATP-500 results and his lowest ATP-500 result is higher than his lowest "ATP-250 or challenger result" ? Can't he replace his ATP-250 result in that case ?

amirbachar
01-06-2009, 08:30 PM
Which page of the rule book please ?

since I saw nothing about that in the rulebook.

Only on the website FAQ :



I have to say that this was not very clear for me as "best other what ?"

and what's the relationship between the zero pointers and the case "when a player has four 500 results" (then no zero pointer) ?

This looked very dark to me : I had a headache trying to understand the logics of these sentence :cuckoo:

But you look more clever than me :

from what I understand, you believe it means :

1. if a player has not more than 3 "ATP-500 results", he cannot replace his ATP-500 zero-pointers but he can replace his best "ATP-250 tournament or challenger".

2. if a player has 4 ATP-500 results, he can replace his lowest ATP-500 result.

Yes, suddenly I see a logics in that !!

But what if a player has 3 ATP-500 results and his Davis cup result is better than his 3rd one ? Can he replace this third result ?

And what if he has 4 ATP-500 results and his lowest ATP-500 result is higher than his lowest "ATP-250 or challenger result" ? Can't he replace his ATP-250 result in that case ?

A first round loss doesn't count as a 0-pointer (it's the same as 2008).

You understand it well now.
About your 2 questions:
What if a player has 3 ATP-500 results and his Davis cup result is better than his 3rd one ? Can he replace this third result? I think that he can't replace his 3rd 500 tournament, because a top 30 player (of 2008) must include 4 tournaments in his rankings and that way he will only include 3 (including the 0-pointer).
And what if he respected his commitment and played at least 4 ATP-500 tournaments but in only 3 tournaments he could win a match and then get some points ? Can't he count the Davis Cup as his 4th best result in that case? Yes, he can replace it in that case.
What if he has 4 ATP-500 results and his lowest ATP-500 result is higher than his lowest "ATP-250 or challenger result" ? Can't he replace his ATP-250 result in that case ? In that case the answer is no for sure, because any player may have only up to 4 500 tournaments in his ranking (last year's top 30 also must have 4 tournaments in their ranking).

Basically, Davis Cup can only replace "other tournaments" (250 or less).
The replacement of 500 tourney if he played 4 or more of them is an exception, because no player can have more than 4 500 tournament in his ranking.

duong
01-06-2009, 08:59 PM
A first round loss doesn't count as a 0-pointer (it's the same as 2008).

Thanks for your ideas but I still don't understand what you call a "0-pointer" :

except for the Grand slams and the Masters Series 1000, when a player plays a tournament but does not win any match, he doesn't get any point.

It's the same as 2008, it's true, but imo, this is something which can be called as a "zero-pointer result". What else ?

I kind of understand from what you say, that the notion of a "zero pointer" would rather refer to this other category of "zeros" which are imposed to a player because he didn't respect a rule (last year it happened if you had had two late withdrawals, now it's for other reasons, but well this is a "zero pointer").

But well, this is not at all obvious that a tournament with no win could not be called a "zero pointer" :confused:

You understand it well now.

Well :banghead: partly, only partly I'm afraid :rolls:

Actually you gave me some ideas for how to understand the ATP sentences but it's still not clear yet for me.

As for the rulebook, I looked for the word "Davis" and I can ensure you that I found nothing about that.

amirbachar
01-06-2009, 09:08 PM
Thanks for your ideas but I still don't understand what you call a "0-pointer" :

except for the Grand slams and the Masters Series 1000, when a player plays a tournament but does not win any match, he doesn't get any point.

It's the same as 2008, it's true, but imo, this is something which can be called as a "zero-pointer result". What else ?

I kind of understand from what you say, that the notion of a "zero pointer" would rather refer to this other category of "zeros" which are imposed to a player because he didn't respect a rule (last year it happened if you had had two late withdrawals, now it's for other reasons, but well this is a "zero pointer").

But well, this is not at all obvious that a tournament with no win could not be called a "zero pointer" :confused:



Well :banghead: partly, only partly I'm afraid :rolls:

Actually you gave me some ideas for how to understand the ATP sentences but it's still not clear yet for me.

As for the rulebook, I looked for the word "Davis" and I can ensure you that I found nothing about that.

Yeah, I guess it was just in the FAQ and not in the Rulebook.
The way I see it, 0-pointer is a 0 points tournament that must be included in a player's ranking.

duong
01-06-2009, 09:18 PM
Yeah, I guess it was just in the FAQ and not in the Rulebook.
The way I see it, 0-pointer is a 0 points tournament that must be included in a player's ranking.

OK Thanks a lot :worship:,

I think I understand it more clearly now thanks to your answers.

It's true that it gets clearer if you limit the notion of "zero pointers" to that.

amirbachar
01-07-2009, 11:20 AM
I like to hear your thoughts about the impact on the challengers, as I noticed it won't be as bad as some think.

Henry Chinaski
01-07-2009, 01:12 PM
I really think that there should have been at least one ATP-500 tournament on grass (Queens and/or Halle) : I don't know why it was impossible Probably a business issue.

I reckon they know Queen's and Halle will have great fields anyway so they don't have to awards decent points to entice players there unlike Valencia and Memphis say....

Action Jackson
01-07-2009, 01:17 PM
I reckon they know Queen's and Halle will have great fields anyway so they don't have to awards decent points to entice players there unlike Valencia and Memphis say....

Pretty much, considering how short the grass court season is, players will do what they can to get some matches in.

Seems like we have some ATP stooge employees in here. Simple, considering how hard it is for the majority of players to come through the challengers, yet they decide to make it more difficult than it was before, is not beneficial.

Horatio Caine
01-07-2009, 02:17 PM
No, they don't count the Masters in their rankings if they miss the cut.
The only special rule for top-30 is they must include 4 500 tournements in their ranking, but they get automatic entry for 500 tournements regardless of their ranking.

Thanks for correcting me...got confused by the ATP's wording in their FAQ on the new rankings system. I see that in the ATP rule book it is explained more clearly...and is, essentially, the same rule as used in the previous ranking system anyway.

Horatio Caine
01-07-2009, 03:05 PM
I like to hear your thoughts about the impact on the challengers, as I noticed it won't be as bad as some think.

Would you mind elaborating on this please? Not sure if you're focusing solely on challengers, or making the comparison between challengers and ATP?

Assuming that you're just focusing on the challengers, I think there are two ways of looking at it. On the one hand, the changes to the rankings points won't have a major impact on the "no hope" players...if they weren't going to make it before (and, obviously, that encompasses the vast majority of them), essentially they aren't going to be any worse off now.

On the other hand, imo the true problem lies with those players that are CAPABLE of making it to the higher echelons (top 200 and upwards really)...consistent, solid performances at challenger level, for example, WILL seem to count for less, meaning that progression into the thick of contention for top 100 status should prove more difficult. For instance, take a look at how the ATP has reclassified the points (I have hand-picked 3 different challenger levels):



W F SF QF R2 R1

$150,000+H - 2009: 125 75 45 25 10 0
2008: 100 70 45 23 10 0

$100,000 - 2009: 90 55 33 17 8 0
2008: 70 49 31 16 7 0

$35,000+H - 2009: 75 45 27 13 5 0
2008: 55 38 24 13 5 0



As you can see, the new rankings system only seems to reward you if you reach the finals in such events...the increase in points for SF finishes is barely worth mentioning/none at all, and if you lose any earlier than that, in effect you'll be losing more ground on the title winners/finalists (and many of the borderline top 100 players will have a good handful of these finishes) than you would have been before this modified points system was introduced.

duong
01-07-2009, 03:44 PM
As you can see, the new rankings system only seems to reward you if you reach the finals in such events...the increase in points for SF finishes is barely worth mentioning/none at all, and if you lose any earlier than that, in effect you'll be losing more ground on the title winners/finalists (and many of the borderline top 100 players will have a good handful of these finishes) than you would have been before this modified points system was introduced.

I will develop that tonight (in a few hours in France),

but anyway, the usual challenger players who reached the top-100 were quite used to reaching many finals.

For ActionJackson : I don't work for the ATP and I have nothing against challenger players (I'm used to checking the results of these tournaments thanks to Coocoocachoo especially ... and it's very funny to follow all of these players),

I just try to talk about it seriously and in a quite objective way ... because I'm interested in that :shrug: (I work in statistics but a totally different kind of statistics, this is only for pleasure).

Actually, my next post will not be yet about this "second division" or "second league" but about players of the "first league" who couldn't do better than R16 in grand slams and masters series :

you will see that they are also concerned (we already saw that even Federer is concerned ! :lol:) about that major change which is the bigger difference between the winner or finalist with the other ones :shrug:

And then promised, I will reach the topic of that "second league" ... which also concerns ATP250 tournaments actually (because many players between 50 and 100 reached a challenger-final but quite few reached an ATP250-final ... and as you said, there's such a big difference between a final and another result :shrug: )

Anyway for the players who are above the top-100 and ONLY play challengers, please note that the difference between the biggest challengers and the smallest is getting smaller.

duong
01-08-2009, 03:37 AM
Before talking about the "second league" as promised,

there's still something I would like to mention about the "first league" :

I've read that the points in the Grand Slams and Masters Series have been increased a lot, like in the ATP500 tournaments, and even more than the 3 ATP500 tournaments which were previously IS Gold tournaments with the highest prize money (the "3 big" Dubai, Rotterdam, Barcelona).

It's true for the winners until the quarter-finalists of these Grand Slams and Masters Series.

But it's not true for those who don't go reach the quarter-finals of these tournaments.

As a matter of fact, the points for a R16 are increased by 1.20 in a Grand Slam or a Masters Series
... which is a lower ratio than for a victory or a final in an ATP250 tournament, the same ratio as for a semi-final in an ATP250 tournament ... and less than for a victory in a Challenger tournament.

This means that the players in the "first league" who never manage to reach the quarterfinals of the Grand Slams and the Masters Series will be disadvantaged by the new Ranking System.

Some examples of players losing ranks because of that in the simulations about 2008 :

- Tursunov -2 ranks
- Cilic -4
- Melzer -5
- Ferrero -4
- Hewitt -2

Then once again the new system is not a "perfect insurance" for the players who have been admitted in the "first league" :

they can't stay in that "first league" just by regularly winning one or two rounds : they have to be able to go further from time to time.

duong
01-08-2009, 03:53 AM
W F SF QF R2 R1

$150,000+H - 2009: 125 75 45 25 10 0
2008: 100 70 45 23 10 0

$100,000 - 2009: 90 55 33 17 8 0
2008: 70 49 31 16 7 0

$35,000+H - 2009: 75 45 27 13 5 0
2008: 55 38 24 13 5 0



As you can see, the new rankings system only seems to reward you if you reach the finals in such events...the increase in points for SF finishes is barely worth mentioning/none at all, and if you lose any earlier than that, in effect you'll be losing more ground on the title winners/finalists (and many of the borderline top 100 players will have a good handful of these finishes) than you would have been before this modified points system was introduced.

Hereby in this Word document you will find all of the ratios between the points in the old system and the new system.

Actually it helps to understand everything.

Action Jackson
01-08-2009, 04:00 AM
On the other hand, imo the true problem lies with those players that are CAPABLE of making it to the higher echelons (top 200 and upwards really)...consistent, solid performances at challenger level, for example, WILL seem to count for less, meaning that progression into the thick of contention for top 100 status should prove more difficult. For instance, take a look at how the ATP has reclassified the points (I have hand-picked 3 different challenger levels):



W F SF QF R2 R1

$150,000+H - 2009: 125 75 45 25 10 0
2008: 100 70 45 23 10 0

$100,000 - 2009: 90 55 33 17 8 0
2008: 70 49 31 16 7 0

$35,000+H - 2009: 75 45 27 13 5 0
2008: 55 38 24 13 5 0



As you can see, the new rankings system only seems to reward you if you reach the finals in such events...the increase in points for SF finishes is barely worth mentioning/none at all, and if you lose any earlier than that, in effect you'll be losing more ground on the title winners/finalists (and many of the borderline top 100 players will have a good handful of these finishes) than you would have been before this modified points system was introduced.

That's the problem, that you have clearly explained with the numbers, because it's not exactly easy to get through to the top 100 and the area between 100-200 is very competitive, but these players don't count at all and only winning these events will count, so SFs and QFs will mean absolutely jack shit.

duong, the numbers are clear, the overall gap has widened between the main tour and the challenger tour, this is clearly obvious, this is not a good thing at all. It's just making shit for no reason at all, just to protect the higher ranked players.

duong
01-08-2009, 04:17 AM
It has been said that the new ranking system "is an advantage for the top-50"

... or in other words that the composition of the top-50 will be more stable than before because the players in the top-50 can take part in the biggest tournaments where the points are increased.

If I try to check that from the simulation,

I can look at the players who were not in the top-50 in the beginning of the year and would have managed to reach the top-50 with the old and the new Ranking System.

The result is that :
- in the simulation with the new system, 4 players Darcis, Gulbis, Granollers and Petzschner would have reached the top-50 in the end of 2008, which they didn't do with the previous Ranking system
- on the opposite, Kunitsyn would not have managed to reach the top-50.

One part of the reason for that is the fact that some players who were in the top-30 in the end of 2007 would have gone out of the top-50 because they wouldn't have respected their new commitment to take part in at least 4 ATP-500 tournaments :
Monaco and Ljubicic are the two examples in the simulation.

Another reason for that is that some players might have reached the top-50 by isolated big results in ATP500 tournaments :
Darcis, Petzschner, Granollers

or in grand slams or masters series (Gulbis)

At least, it's clear that the young "great talents" like Gulbis would have no problem to reach the top-50
... and even maybe have less difficulty than before,

since many of the great very young talents exploded with isolated big results, even if they needed to get older to get higher consistency (think of the explosion and first years of all the great players of the game).

For the others, at least the simulation doesn't confirm the idea of a "completely blocked top-50".

For the top-80 the simulation gives the same result if you compare with the ranking in the end of 2007.

For the top-100, my simulation doesn't include enough players to check that,

but I believe that this would be the same result,

especially as with the new ranking system,

the points difference between the smallest and the biggest challengers gets smaller (see the table above)

fast_clay
01-08-2009, 04:19 AM
This means that the players in the "first league" who never manage to reach the quarterfinals of the Grand Slams and the Masters Series will be disadvantaged by the new Ranking System.


i have no issue with this... i have bandwagoned gilles simon on occasion, but, there is no Quarter Final GS appearance on his record... so a severe punishment for this is perhaps just... i dont think i would be alone in thinking this - Simon ending in the top ten with only a final in a MS to his credit...

my issues still lay with the fluidity of movement from ranks 150 ---> 75...

duong
01-08-2009, 04:25 AM
That's the problem, that you have clearly explained with the numbers, because it's not exactly easy to get through to the top 100 and the area between 100-200 is very competitive, but these players don't count at all and only winning these events will count, so SFs and QFs will mean absolutely jack shit.

duong, the numbers are clear, the overall gap has widened between the main tour and the challenger tour, this is clearly obvious, this is not a good thing at all. It's just making shit for no reason at all, just to protect the higher ranked players.

For the matter of reaching the top-100,

my impression is that :

1. the players who are ranked around 80 are not protected as they can seldom take part in ATP500 tournaments

2. to reach the top-100, the players who were used to playing in challengers already had to win several challengers anyway :
at least that's my impression from looking carefully at the rankings only since one year actually :o
I'll try to give you precise figures for that

3. as I already told, the gap between the biggest and the smallest challengers gets smaller with the new system

duong
01-08-2009, 04:35 AM
only winning these events will count, so SFs and QFs will mean absolutely jack shit.

Personally I quite don't like the idea that an isolated big result will have more implications that several regular less brilliant results.

BUT for the purpose of having more movement inside the rankings,

I have the impression that it rather creates bigger movements.

Action Jackson
01-08-2009, 04:43 AM
For the matter of reaching the top-100,

my impression is that :

1. the players who are ranked around 80 are not protected as they can seldom take part in ATP500 tournaments

2. to reach the top-100, the players who were used to playing in challengers already had to win several challengers anyway :
at least that's my impression from looking carefully at the rankings only since one year actually :o
I'll try to give you precise figures for that

3. as I already told, the gap between the biggest and the smallest challengers gets smaller with the new system

Players ranked in the 70s-150s where the biggest problems are with the ranking system, play a mixture of challengers and tour events and that makes sense and get their results that way.

As I told you, the gap between the IS events and the challengers is greater than before, and that's the biggest problem. So the gaps between the challengers has hardly changed at all as has been coded by Burro, so 1 pt difference is really a huge change is it?

I won't be calling them 250s and stupid names like that. Simon well the guy has done nothing in Slams, but he did well elsewhere to cover for this.

Action Jackson
01-08-2009, 04:48 AM
Personally I quite don't like the idea that an isolated big result will have more implications that several regular less brilliant results.

BUT for the purpose of having more movement inside the rankings,

I have the impression that it rather creates bigger movements.

The facts are if they wanted to increase the points, then the same increases should have been done across the board, not this 1.4 shit or 1.51, increase by 1 pt the challenger or something like this. It's obvious that it's going to be harder for lower ranked players to progress through the rankings progressively, without having a big result like Petzschner and Stakhovsky did last year.

Players deserve to be rewarded for doing well in big events, that's fair enough, imagine if Simon had a decent GS result.

duong
01-08-2009, 05:10 AM
About the challengers,

here's first a statistical summary of the movements through the simulation of the "challenger players" inside my data base (mainly limited to players who reached the top-110 in the end of 2008).

It's clear that the "challenger players" lose some ranks because of the new ranking system :

I sorted them according to the share of challengers in their points in tournaments other than Grand Slams and Masters Series (that's the figure between the blankets) :

Diego Junqueira (100%) 76 --> 82 : - 6
Leonardo Mayer (94%) 108 --> 114 : - 6
Thomaz Bellucci (94%) 83 --> 85 : - 2
Alberto Martin (91%) 96 --> 102 : - 6
Martin Vassallo-Arguello (91%) 69 --> 71 : - 2
Pablo Andujar (91%) 97 --> 103 : - 6
Denis Istomin (90%) 101 --> 110 : - 9
Robert Kendrick (90%) 93 --> 107 : - 14
Sergio Roitman (86%) 110 --> 111 : - 1
Nicolas Devilder (86%) 71 --> 78 : - 7
Gilles Müller (86%) 91 --> 80 : + 11
Brian Dabul (80%) 99 --> 104 : - 5
Adrian Mannarino (78%) 115 --> 118 : - 3
Christophe Rochus (78%) 67 --> 79 : - 12
Paul Capdeville (76%) 106 --> 95 : + 11
Kristof Vliegen (76%) 82 --> 76 : + 6
Ivan Navarro-Pastor (76%) 72 --> 81 : - 9
Yen Hsun Lu (74%) 63 --> 63 : stable
Daniel Gimeno-Traver (73%) 87 --> 100 : - 13
Andreas Beck (73%) 105 --> 88 : + 17
Nicolas Massu (72%) 75 --> 75 : stable
Hyung Taik Lee (70%) 103 --> 94 : + 9
(NB : Hyung-Taik started the year in the top-50)
Frank Dancevic (65%) 114 --> 116 : - 2
Bobby Reynolds (64%) 68 --> 66 : + 2
Ian Hernych (64%) 79 --> 65 : + 14
Jérémie Chardy (62%) 73 --> 90 : - 17
Sergey Stakhovsky (60%) 88 --> 86 : + 2
Kevin Anderson (56%) 100 --> 93 : + 7

Action Jackson
01-08-2009, 05:14 AM
Hernych was injured for most of the season and Stakhovsky won an IS event.

duong
01-08-2009, 05:28 AM
Hernych was injured for most of the season and Stakhovsky won an IS event.

I'm surprised for Hernych as he had 23 results in 2008.

But it's clear that his big improvement in the simulation is related to his good results in "ATP500 tournaments" (Stuttgart, Dubai, Vienna) ... and after qualifying.

Like for Müller, Beck and Anderson.

For Capdeville, apart from challengers : only quarterfinal in Indianapolis, R16 in Houston and Delray Beach, 2nd tound in Melbourne and Roland-Garros. Plus qualies in Wimbledon and Miami.

For Vliegen : he won 4 challengers

Action Jackson
01-08-2009, 05:32 AM
Good number crunching by the way.

duong
01-08-2009, 05:56 AM
I've added how many challengers they won, or finals :

it's quite a lot !


Diego Junqueira (100%) 76 --> 82 : - 6 won 3 + 3 finals
Leonardo Mayer (94%) 108 --> 114 : - 6 won 1 + 3 finals
Thomaz Bellucci (94%) 83 --> 85 : - 2 won 4
Alberto Martin (91%) 96 --> 102 : - 6 won 2 + 2 finals
Martin Vassallo-Arguello (91%) 69 --> 71 : - 2 won 3 + 2 finals
Pablo Andujar (91%) 97 --> 103 : - 6 won 2 + 2 finals
Denis Istomin (90%) 101 --> 110 : - 9 won 2 + 2 finals
Robert Kendrick (90%) 93 --> 107 : - 14 won 2 + 4 finals
Sergio Roitman (86%) 110 --> 111 : - 1 won 1 + 4 finals
Nicolas Devilder (86%) 71 --> 78 : - 7 won 3 + 1 final
Gilles Müller (86%) 91 --> 80 : + 11 won 2
Brian Dabul (80%) 99 --> 104 : - 5 won 2 + 1 final
Adrian Mannarino (78%) 115 --> 118 : - 3 won 1 + 1 final
Christophe Rochus (78%) 67 --> 79 : - 12 won 2 + 3 finals
Paul Capdeville (76%) 106 --> 95 : + 11 won 2 + 1 final
Kristof Vliegen (76%) 82 --> 76 : + 6 won 4
Ivan Navarro-Pastor (76%) 72 --> 81 : - 9 won 3 + 1 final
Yen Hsun Lu (74%) 63 --> 63 : stable won 3 + 2 finals
Daniel Gimeno-Traver (73%) 87 --> 100 : - 13 won 2 + 2 finals
Andreas Beck (73%) 105 --> 88 : + 17 won 2 + 2 finals
Nicolas Massu (72%) 75 --> 75 : stable won 2 + 2 finals
Hyung Taik Lee (70%) 103 --> 94 : + 9 won 2 + 1 final
(NB : Hyung-Taik started the year in the top-50)
Frank Dancevic (65%) 114 --> 116 : - 2 won 1 + 1 final
Bobby Reynolds (64%) 68 --> 66 : + 2 won 3
Ian Hernych (64%) 79 --> 65 : + 14 won 2 + 1 final
Jérémie Chardy (62%) 73 --> 90 : - 17 won 1 + 1 final
Sergey Stakhovsky (60%) 88 --> 86 : + 2 won 2 + 1 final
Kevin Anderson (56%) 100 --> 93 : + 7 won 1 + 1 final

Action Jackson
01-08-2009, 06:01 AM
Schwank was another one who did very well in the challengers, but won matches on tour, unlike Marcos Daniel for example.

duong
01-08-2009, 06:03 AM
I've added how many challengers they won, or finals :

it's quite a lot !

What I mean is that when you look at the ratios table I displayed before, you see :

Smallest ATP tournaments : W 1.43 F 1.25 SF 1.20 QF 1.13 R16 1.33

Biggest challengers : W 1.22 F 1.03 SF 1.00 QF 0.95 R16 1.00

Smallest challengers : W 1.36 F 1.18 SF 1.13 QF 1.00 R16 1.00

and you say : the gap between the points in the smallest ATP tournaments and the challengers does increase quite a lot

BUT the ratios are higher when you win

AND for players of the same level, they reach far more often the finals of the challengers and win, than they do for ATP tournaments

THEN you cannot compare in an only vertical way, but also in a diagonal way (for instance a victory in a challenger is equivalent to a semi-final in a small ATP-tournament ... and for that the ratios are comparable)

Actually the average ratios for the "challenger players" displayed before are around 1.15-1.20 ... nearly like the ratio for a challenger final !

duong
01-08-2009, 06:17 AM
What I also mean is that

anyway if you wanted to reach the top-100,

you already had to WIN several challengers :

it's not something new.

Moreover, it's still very possible to climb the rankings by challengers,
even if it's a little bit more difficult than before

... and more importantly, you can climb even quicker by going far in ATP500 tournaments or Grand Slams or Masters Series :

for very talented players, either very young or old and have been injured, it can even be easier than before

AND for other players, you can more often try your chance in ATP tournaments (e.g Hernych, Petzschner, Beck, Stakhovsky, Anderson) !

Action Jackson
01-08-2009, 09:20 AM
What I mean is that when you look at the ratios table I displayed before, you see :

Smallest ATP tournaments : W 1.43 F 1.25 SF 1.20 QF 1.13 R16 1.33

Biggest challengers : W 1.22 F 1.03 SF 1.00 QF 0.95 R16 1.00

Smallest challengers : W 1.36 F 1.18 SF 1.13 QF 1.00 R16 1.00

and you say : the gap between the points in the smallest ATP tournaments and the challengers does increase quite a lot

BUT the ratios are higher when you win

AND for players of the same level, they reach far more often the finals of the challengers and win, than they do for ATP tournaments

THEN you cannot compare in an only vertical way, but also in a diagonal way (for instance a victory in a challenger is equivalent to a semi-final in a small ATP-tournament ... and for that the ratios are comparable)

Winning big challengers is the only thing that is going to help, seriously most of the points from the majority of players at this level are made up of semis and QFs at challenger level, because the level is very even, this does not necessarily mean there are going to be more winners. In any given year there are around 4 or 5 players that win 3 or more challengers a year and these are fluid, because of the previous results, then they are going to be playing IS events the next season.

That has been the way a title win in Prostejov, Szcezcin, Braunschweig CH was the equivalent of a QF/SF performance in a IS event, but since that isn't important, the greater differential which has already been proven between IS events and challengers is of greater importance.

Considering it's harder to get into the ISG events than before, you really do sound like an ATP employee.

duong
01-08-2009, 09:42 AM
Winning big challengers is the only thing that is going to help, seriously most of the points from the majority of players at this level are made up of semis and QFs at challenger level, because the level is very even, this does not necessarily mean there are going to be more winners.

I'm not talking about "the majority of the players at this level",
only about those who enter the top-100.

I think I will have to make the calculation for you about how much percentage of their chalenger points all of the preceding players got in semi-final and final.

I try the first one to start :
for Junqueira, 62% of his points outside grand slams were got in the final or the win of a challenger.


In any given year there are around 4 or 5 players that win 3 or more challengers a year and these are fluid, because of the previous results, then they are going to be playing IS events the next season.

there are 8 in the preceding ones.
And many of them have played IS events already during this season.


That has been the way a title win in Prostejov, Szcezcin, Braunschweig CH was the equivalent of a QF/SF performance in a IS event

No once again you have a lot of prejudice in your mind,

I'm just totally new but I look at facts :

a win in Prostejov was 100 points, a semi-final in an IS event 75 points, quarter-final 40 points.

Now it will be 125 points in Prostejov (110 points in the other big ones), 90 points for a semi-final in an IS event.


Considering it's harder to get into the ISG events than before, you really do sound like an ATP employee.

And you really sound as very stubborn and narrow-minded.

I'm sure you know tennis far better than me,
but you're all about prejudice and self-confidence.

I'm just a statistician mathematician, I only have hard work and passion among my skills,

but at least I'm not so proud of myself.

I just give you the calculations and figures : after that you think what you want.

Anyway, as a statistician, I'm much used that people don't want to look at figures except to persuade others about what they already think.

"Statistics is the best way to ly" ... yes, because people only want to use it like that, that's the way it is.

That's why usually I prefer making statistics only for myself.

Action Jackson
01-08-2009, 10:10 AM
I'm not talking about "the majority of the players at this level",
only about those who enter the top-100.


Considering that the biggest problem with the larger differential between IS and Challengers is going to impact on players between 75-200.

What valid reasons are there for this to happen?


I think I will have to make the calculation for you about how much percentage of their chalenger points all of the preceding players got in semi-final and final.

I try the first one to start :
for Junqueira, 62% of his points outside grand slams were got in the final or the win of a challenger.

there are 8 in the preceding ones.
And many of them have played IS events already during this season.



What about Junqueira, he hasn't played much on the tour, he hasn't been at the level to do and now he is ranked high enough he will be playing more IS events because of this.

Marcos Daniel is the same, he does well at the challenger level, but struggled at IS, then there is Roitman who has done better than Daniel, but has the same problem, if they don't do well enough in the IS events, and challenger points drop off, then they have to go back there and build up their game again, along with the up and comers and players coming back from long term injuries.

Guys like Schwank who won a lot of challengers in 2008, but was able to exist at IS level, that is what should be happening.


No once again you have a lot of prejudice in your mind,

I'm just totally new but I look at facts :

a win in Prostejov was 100 points, a semi-final in an IS event 75 points, quarter-final 40 points.

Now it will be 125 points in Prostejov (110 points in the other big ones), 90 points for a semi-final in an IS event.


How many big challengers are there per season? These have not increased. There aren't very many are there. The ones that are tend to get some high quality fields depending on their time of the year and since this is the case, the tournament becomes more difficult to win.

And you really sound as very stubborn and narrow-minded.

I'm sure you know tennis far better than me,
but you're all about prejudice and self-confidence.

I'm just a statistician mathematician, I only have hard work and passion among my skills,

but at least I'm not so proud of myself.

I just give you the calculations and figures : after that you think what you want.

Anyway, as a statistician, I'm much used that people don't want to look at figures except to persuade others about what they already think.

"Statistics is the best way to lie" ... yes, because people only want to use like that, that's the way it is

Here is the difference. You are a bean counter and everything revolves around numbers, instead of using the numerical data along with other factors to come to a conclusion.

Yes, this means that there won't be as many players willing to stick it out, because the ceiling has become higher than it was before and this is something you have agreed is the case, yet you seem to think that this is not a problem. The game of tennis is more important than some random numbers.

It's not a question of being narrow minded at all, if the ranking system is changed to protect one group of players and significantly disadvantage another group of players, because there ranking is lower and making the transition to the top 100 (the promised land) all the more difficult, then there is no way I am supporting it and yes the numbers indicate this. From yourself
Moreover, it's still very possible to climb the rankings by challengers,
even if it's a little bit more difficult than before

So do you want to keep going around in circles?

duong
01-08-2009, 11:24 AM
OK I keep on my circles, as you are right, I'm a bean counter ;)

... but well what are ranking points if they are not beans ? :shrug:

I don't pretend that this is all about figures,

but yet, when a figure is changed from 75 to 90,

it's not that tennistically concrete, no ? :lol:

There are figures in that (and that's what I try to look at, to complete the high tennis knowledge many of you have :shrug:) :

for instance, you know that at challenger level, level is very uniform and most of the time, players don't manage to win the tournaments.

But yet, as a win or final gives many points,

on average the players of the top-110 who were most specialized in challengers in 2008,
earnt 60% of their challengers (or futures) points by reaching the final of these tournaments (with the old ranking points ... and they would even more with the new ranking points of course) :

Diego Junqueira (100%) 76 --> 82 : -6 62 %
Leonardo Mayer (94%) 108 --> 114 : -6 47 %
Thomaz Bellucci (94%) 83 --> 85 : -2 68 %
Alberto Martin (91%) 96 --> 102 : -6 52 %
Martin Vassallo-Arguello (91%) 69 --> 71 : -2 69 %
Pablo Andujar (91%) 97 --> 103 : -6 50 %
Denis Istomin (90%) 101 --> 110 : -9 50 %
Robert Kendrick (90%) 93 --> 107 : -14 72 %
Sergio Roitman (86%) 110 --> 111 : -1 68 %
Nicolas Devilder (86%) 71 --> 78 : -7 69 %
Gilles Müller (86%) 91 --> 80 : +11 63 %
Brian Dabul (80%) 99 --> 104 : -5 44 %
Adrian Mannarino (78%) 115 --> 118 : -3 54 %
Christophe Rochus (78%) 67 --> 79 : -12 61 %
Paul Capdeville (76%) 106 --> 95 : + 11 76 %
Kristof Vliegen (76%) 82 --> 76 : +6 86 %
Ivan Navarro-Pastor (76%) 72 --> 81 : -9 66 %
Yen Hsun Lu (74%) 63 --> 63 : stable 80 %
Daniel Gimeno-Traver (73%) 87 --> 100 : - 13 53 %
Andreas Beck (73%) 105 --> 88 : + 17 72 %
Nicolas Massu (72%) 75 --> 75 : stable 53 %
Hyung Taik Lee (70%) 103 --> 94 : + 9 72 %
(NB : Hyung-Taik started the year in the top-50)
Frank Dancevic (65%) 114 --> 116 : - 2 52 %
Bobby Reynolds (64%) 68 --> 66 : + 2 67 %
Ian Hernych (64%) 79 --> 65 : + 14 61 %
Jérémie Chardy (62%) 73 --> 90 : - 17 55 %
Sergey Stakhovsky (60%) 88 --> 86 : + 2 46 %
Kevin Anderson (56%) 100 --> 93 : + 7 51 %

And these "figures" explain

that on the whole, the ratio between their points with the new ranking system and their points with the old ranking system

is around 1.20

... which is also the ratio for the semi-final in a small ATP event.

And this is also why on the whole, they don't lose so many ranks despite the fact that for the same round, the number of points increases less than for an ATP event.

Please understand that I'm only trying here to bring you another information, something you don't know yet, which is not obvious when you "know tennis", and when you first look at the figures or hear about the new system :

that's the interest of my work and that's the interest of statistics, especially statistics about something very mathematical like economics or finance or ... ranking points

What else ? (no I'm not George Clooney either :lol: )

Horatio Caine
01-08-2009, 11:40 AM
Diego Junqueira (100%) 76 --> 82 : - 6 won 3 + 3 finals
Leonardo Mayer (94%) 108 --> 114 : - 6 won 1 + 3 finals
Thomaz Bellucci (94%) 83 --> 85 : - 2 won 4Alberto Martin (91%) 96 --> 102 : - 6 won 2 + 2 finals
Martin Vassallo-Arguello (91%) 69 --> 71 : - 2 won 3 + 2 finals
Pablo Andujar (91%) 97 --> 103 : - 6 won 2 + 2 finals Denis Istomin (90%) 101 --> 110 : - 9 won 2 + 2 finals
Robert Kendrick (90%) 93 --> 107 : - 14 won 2 + 4 finals
Sergio Roitman (86%) 110 --> 111 : - 1 won 1 + 4 finals
Nicolas Devilder (86%) 71 --> 78 : - 7 won 3 + 1 final
Gilles Müller (86%) 91 --> 80 : + 11 won 2
Brian Dabul (80%) 99 --> 104 : - 5 won 2 + 1 final
Adrian Mannarino (78%) 115 --> 118 : - 3 won 1 + 1 final
Christophe Rochus (78%) 67 --> 79 : - 12 won 2 + 3 finals
Paul Capdeville (76%) 106 --> 95 : + 11 won 2 + 1 final
Kristof Vliegen (76%) 82 --> 76 : + 6 won 4
Ivan Navarro-Pastor (76%) 72 --> 81 : - 9 won 3 + 1 final
Yen Hsun Lu (74%) 63 --> 63 : stable won 3 + 2 finals
Daniel Gimeno-Traver (73%) 87 --> 100 : - 13 won 2 + 2 finals
Andreas Beck (73%) 105 --> 88 : + 17 won 2 + 2 finals
Nicolas Massu (72%) 75 --> 75 : stable won 2 + 2 finals
Hyung Taik Lee (70%) 103 --> 94 : + 9 won 2 + 1 final
(NB : Hyung-Taik started the year in the top-50)
Frank Dancevic (65%) 114 --> 116 : - 2 won 1 + 1 final
Bobby Reynolds (64%) 68 --> 66 : + 2 won 3
Ian Hernych (64%) 79 --> 65 : + 14 won 2 + 1 final
Jérémie Chardy (62%) 73 --> 90 : - 17 won 1 + 1 final
Sergey Stakhovsky (60%) 88 --> 86 : + 2 won 2 + 1 final
Kevin Anderson (56%) 100 --> 93 : + 7 won 1 + 1 final

Many thanks for the hard work mate...definitely some further patterns emerging for the more hardcore challenger players hovering in, and around, the top 100.

We're trying to argue that players in the thick of contention for top 100 status, and more reliant than others (of similar rankings) on challenger results are going to lose out, to some degree. This appears evident, if we focus, in particular, on the players most reliant on challenger performances:

Diego Junqueira (100%) 76 --> 82 : - 6 won 3 + 3 finals
Leonardo Mayer (94%) 108 --> 114 : - 6 won 1 + 3 finals
Thomaz Bellucci (94%) 83 --> 85 : - 2 won 4Alberto Martin (91%) 96 --> 102 : - 6 won 2 + 2 finals
Martin Vassallo-Arguello (91%) 69 --> 71 : - 2 won 3 + 2 finals
Pablo Andujar (91%) 97 --> 103 : - 6 won 2 + 2 finals Denis Istomin (90%) 101 --> 110 : - 9 won 2 + 2 finals
Robert Kendrick (90%) 93 --> 107 : - 14 won 2 + 4 finals
Sergio Roitman (86%) 110 --> 111 : - 1 won 1 + 4 finals
Nicolas Devilder (86%) 71 --> 78 : - 7 won 3 + 1 final
Gilles Müller (86%) 91 --> 80 : + 11 won 2
Brian Dabul (80%) 99 --> 104 : - 5 won 2 + 1 final


I'd initially highlighted Junqueira and Devilder as players who would have lost out under the ATP's new rankings system, but, as duong's excellent work illustrates, there are several others, notably Mayer, Andujar and Kendrick.

Mayer and Andujar are both guys with youth on their side...I have yet to see them in action (but had heard of them up to a couple of years ago), but maybe they have the talent to make it to the top of the game anyway, in which case the new ranking system wouldn't be so much of an issue for them.

But, as I have said before, the area of concern lies with players like Kendrick, Devilder, Junqueira (3 players who are, incidentally, in the twilight of their careers) etc...players perhaps not quite good enough to properly establish themselves in the top 75-80, but capable of enjoying maybe a good couple of years dipping into and out of the very bottom end of the top 100. With the new rankings system potentially devaluing their challenger results, and potentially dropping them a handful of places (or more) down the rankings...at that sort of ranking, could, for example, make the difference between them securing an automatic entry into a Grand Slam (e.g. Robert Kendrick (90%) 93 --> 107), or having to try their luck in qualifying.

Action Jackson
01-08-2009, 11:54 AM
duong's numerical work is very thorough and well set out, this is very appreciated.

The facts are very clear, the difference between automatic entry into GS events and having to qualify for them is minimal, especially around the direct cutoff without PR's being 104 for the Slams. Players around this region could make the 2nd or 3rd round with luck in the draw and those points could do a lot for them in relation to entry into IS events after the Slam, but with the ones around this region the clear devaluation of points being earned in the challengers is concerning.

Mayer and Andujar if they are lucky can make around 70 for a couple of seasons, the really good ones will make it through and establish themselves on the tour, but that isn't exactly the majority, as it shouldn't be, though what they have essentially said is that these players don't really matter.

cobalt60
01-08-2009, 11:57 AM
Too many numbers- you are making my head spin ;)
In simple terms: all players deserve to be treated equaly. So how does one get rid of this so called points system?

Action Jackson
01-08-2009, 12:03 PM
Please understand that I'm only trying here to bring you another information, something you don't know yet, which is not obvious when you "know tennis", and when you first look at the figures or hear about the new system :

that's the interest of my work and that's the interest of statistics, especially statistics about something very mathematical like economics or finance or ... ranking points

What else ? (no I'm not George Clooney either :lol: )

You think I haven't looked at these figures, well I have and they have been well presented. This does not change the fact that players who earn the majority of their points through the challengers are going to be disadvantaged within this new ranking system, when this should not be the case.

That is problematic for obvious reasons, so no amount of number crunching, bean counting is going to change this, in fact you helped highlight the problematic nature of the unfair distribution of points and which players it will impact on.

TankingTheSet
01-08-2009, 12:18 PM
I don't think you can draw definite conclusions from simply "recalculating" rankings with the new ranking points.

Things are more subtle -- the lower rankings will affect the ability of challenger players to get into entry-lists of ATP tournaments and Grand Slams. This could be a self-strengthening effect. So as the year progresses a "rift" will develop between players who can regularly make ATP main draws due to their ranking and players whose ranking is not good enough. It will be tough for a player ranked in the low 100's to progress deep into the top-100. The 'balance' between the ranking points is a delicate thing and it could be disturbed. Simply doing a recalculation of last year results doesn't show the true picture that will develop.

duong
01-08-2009, 12:55 PM
I don't think you can draw definite conclusions from simply "recalculating" rankings with the new ranking points.

Things are more subtle -- the lower rankings will affect the ability of challenger players to get into entry-lists of ATP tournaments and Grand Slams. This could be a self-strengthening effect. So as the year progresses a "rift" will develop between players who can regularly make ATP main draws due to their ranking and players whose ranking is not good enough. It will be tough for a player ranked in the low 100's to progress deep into the top-100. The 'balance' between the ranking points is a delicate thing and it could be disturbed. Simply doing a recalculation of last year results doesn't show the true picture that will develop.

That's what I thought especially in the beginning :

now I'm more confident about the predictable value of this calculation,

as I could see :

1. that the level of the fields in the entry-lists of the ATP500 and other tournaments for which it's known so far are pretty much the same as they were last year

2. that the new ranking system doesn't have as a major effect as I expected

BUT ... and this is a BIG BUT :

THIS YEAR during the transition period,

there might be a real slowliness for the movement of the rankings

because they multiplied the 2008 results by a too big ratio : double

... whereas the real difference between the points in the new and the old system is rather around 1.3-1.4.

Actually, the players who did well in the 2nd half of last year's season (or let's say after may) might have a great advantage for the rankings and the entry-lists in the 2nd half of the season.

duong
01-08-2009, 01:05 PM
About what El Burro and Action Jackson said about Junqueira, Devilder and players not young and who are quite challenger specialists,

what I can add is that still on a statistical point of view,

it seems that there's a discrepancy in the interest of the new ranking between :

- the players who were very specialised in challengers (representing, let's say, more than 75% of their points other than in GS and MS) : Junqueira, Martin, Arguello, Kendrick, Roitman, Devilder, Dabul, Christophe Rochus (and younger Leonardo Mayer, Bellucci, Andujar, Istomin, Mannarino) : these ones lose between 5 and 15 ranks in the simulation

- the players who also tried their chance in ATP-tournaments : Capdeville, Beck, Vliegen, Reynolds, Hernych, Chardy, Stakhovsky, Anderson ...

From these results I would say that if you want to improve your rankings in the new system, you also have to take your chance in bigger tournaments sometimes
... in qualifyings but also in many ATP250 tournaments where the entry-list is not so hard actually.

duong
01-08-2009, 01:19 PM
I also think that it's quite important to note the fact that some players very talented but inconsistent, either too young or too old,

are advantadged by the new Ranking system :

I talked about the young players who are used to exploding in a big tournament like Gulbis or Nishikori ... but who are also still inconsistent,

but also about old players like Safin, Hewitt, Kiefer, Schuettler, Clément, Horna and later Malisse, Grosjean, Rochus, Hrbaty, Joachim Johansson, Dent, Florian Mayer ...

You are concerned about Devilder or Junqueira's motivation and interest for the sport,

but actually isn't it also very important for the sport that players like Malisse don't waste too much time to regain their ranking and then risk losing their motivation ?

The entry protection, the wild cards have a time but then ?

These players are always able of one big result in a slam or a big tournament that might help their carreer rebound :rocker:
and be useful to tennis.

Anyway never forget that if some players lose some rankings with the new system, some others necessarily win some !

Action Jackson
01-08-2009, 01:30 PM
Just more number crunching. The PR rules are the same for everyone, some will get WCs and others will have to fight through the challengers, just like Massu did in 2008, fighting back from shit form.

There was never a need to change the ranking system and these idiots at the ATP couldn't even get that right.

amirbachar
01-08-2009, 06:22 PM
Considering that the biggest problem with the larger differential between IS and Challengers is going to impact on players between 75-200.

What valid reasons are there for this to happen?




What about Junqueira, he hasn't played much on the tour, he hasn't been at the level to do and now he is ranked high enough he will be playing more IS events because of this.

Marcos Daniel is the same, he does well at the challenger level, but struggled at IS, then there is Roitman who has done better than Daniel, but has the same problem, if they don't do well enough in the IS events, and challenger points drop off, then they have to go back there and build up their game again, along with the up and comers and players coming back from long term injuries.

Guys like Schwank who won a lot of challengers in 2008, but was able to exist at IS level, that is what should be happening.



How many big challengers are there per season? These have not increased. There aren't very many are there. The ones that are tend to get some high quality fields depending on their time of the year and since this is the case, the tournament becomes more difficult to win.



Here is the difference. You are a bean counter and everything revolves around numbers, instead of using the numerical data along with other factors to come to a conclusion.

Yes, this means that there won't be as many players willing to stick it out, because the ceiling has become higher than it was before and this is something you have agreed is the case, yet you seem to think that this is not a problem. The game of tennis is more important than some random numbers.

It's not a question of being narrow minded at all, if the ranking system is changed to protect one group of players and significantly disadvantage another group of players, because there ranking is lower and making the transition to the top 100 (the promised land) all the more difficult, then there is no way I am supporting it and yes the numbers indicate this. From yourself
Moreover, it's still very possible to climb the rankings by challengers,
even if it's a little bit more difficult than before

So do you want to keep going around in circles?

Look, you said it yourself - there are many players who have constant results in challengers that in the old system they would climbed very high, and then they didn't show anything on the ATP - so why shouldn't another player that made better results in the ATP and won challengers (the biggest ratio) have the chance?
Why does it seems good to you that players get overrated easily and then drop when they play ATP (why does it have to be a question of points or money, and not give the best players a chance to play ATP tournements without playing for that in the ranking?
(and the reason for the change this year is the big increase of the money in ATP level).

Horatio Caine
01-12-2009, 06:41 PM
Neil Harman's new "The Net Post" article features a reply from the ATP's head of corporate communications, Kris Dent: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/tennis/article5498891.ece

"The new system has been introduced after extensive research, consultation and modeling and is vastly simplified and much clearer," Dent said. "It ensures all level of fans can identify the relative importance of tournaments on the ATP World Tour by using a points system that immediately indicates the status of any given event. As you know, starting this year, the ATP World Tour Masters 1000 events will reward the winner with 1000 points, the 500 tournaments logically giving the champion 500 points and at the 250 events, 250 points. Grand Slams will award 2000 points to winners while the top level of Challenger events offer 125 points to their winners. It is a simple and progressive points system that has been developed after extensive fan research and in full consultation with players and other tennis stakeholders.

"You are right to point out that the points have been modified slightly within each tournament level. This was done to give the greatest reward to the tournament champion. In addition, the system has also been developed to be far easier to understand and follow - from the top level of Challenger tournament to the grand slams there are now only five levels, replacing as many as nine before.

"The main beneficiaries will rightly be tournament champions and modeling has shown that, apart from the positive ranking benefits to winners of tournaments, overall rankings will not be greatly different from past years and progression for emerging players onto the Tour will not be penalised. Players who do well at Challenger level will still progress onto the main Tour events, replacing those who do not do well at the 250 or 500 level events. Players moving up onto the Tour will also continue to benefit from being able to play schedules of their complete choosing, whereas higher ranked players will have to play 4 ATP World Tour 500s that count towards ranking." So now you know.

duong
01-12-2009, 07:26 PM
modeling has shown that

I've read several times here that the people in the ATP never thought about the real impact of what they did :

I was personally quite sure that they had done the same job El Burro and I have done, and on a larger scale (several years).

This sentence confirms me in that belief.

Action Jackson
01-12-2009, 09:54 PM
Then again the ATP said fans supported Round Robin.

Action Jackson
01-12-2009, 10:01 PM
Look, you said it yourself - there are many players who have constant results in challengers that in the old system they would climbed very high, and then they didn't show anything on the ATP - so why shouldn't another player that made better results in the ATP and won challengers (the biggest ratio) have the chance?
Why does it seems good to you that players get overrated easily and then drop when they play ATP (why does it have to be a question of points or money, and not give the best players a chance to play ATP tournements without playing for that in the ranking?
(and the reason for the change this year is the big increase of the money in ATP level).

These players who struggle at IS level after doing well in challengers, get found out eventually, it's not like this is going to be eliminated.

You missed the point, got to be able to get into the IS events and it's hard to do that without going through the challengers and guess what the majority of players who aren't from big nations had to do it like this. Yes, this means Federer, Nadal, Davydenko for example played challengers at one point in their careers, then they were good enough to compete on the main tour.

duong
01-12-2009, 10:20 PM
You missed the point, got to be able to get into the IS events and it's hard to do that without going through the challengers and guess what the majority of players who aren't from big nations had to do it like this. Yes, this means Federer, Nadal, Davydenko for example played challengers at one point in their careers, then they were good enough to compete on the main tour.

I don't think he missed the point : the players who are really talented will be able to win enough challengers to reach the higher level, or go through qualifyings in bigger events, or go far in some grand slams.

That's something I had already explained.

He talked about other players like Devilder or Junqueira, about whom you had insisted a lot.

I had understood your point about the motivation of these players which might decrease
(and I had put another point about the motivation of players like Malisse or Florian Mayer),

but please don't make a strange mixture with different categories of players playing in challengers : the cases are different.

Anyway I say it again : if some players lose some positions because of the new system, some others will necessarily win some.

What would be bad is if the rankings changed very slowly because of the new rankings :

from my simulation, I don't have at all the impression that it's the case.

It's just different categories of players who move up quickly : those who make isolated big results.

But the main problem, as I said, is that THIS YEAR, in 2009, it's a transition period and they made something quite dangerous by overweighting the 2008 results ... which should result in slower movements inside the rankings.

THIS YEAR.

Via
01-12-2009, 10:27 PM
I've read several times here that the people in the ATP never thought about the real impact of what they did :

I was personally quite sure that they had done the same job El Burro and I have done, and on a larger scale (several years).

This sentence confirms me in that belief.

the atp does hire good people doing stats (maybe because they are cheap to hire, lol) and i can believe that extensive mathematical modelling had been performed on the new ranking system.

this doesn't necessarily exclude any secret agenda to massage the rankings for a purpose (which may not 'fair') though ;)

that said, my gut feeling does agree with you that there won't be that much of a difference with the new but the transition may present some problems.

duong
01-13-2009, 07:37 AM
this doesn't necessarily exclude any secret agenda to massage the rankings for a purpose (which may not 'fair') though ;)

of course you are right for that, they may be "evil" but they are not stupid,
as some people think in this forum.

nobama
01-19-2009, 06:45 PM
http://www.tennisweek.com/news/fullstory.sps?inewsid=6625431

The Evans Report: Ranking Rancor
By Richard Evans
Monday, January 19, 2009

According to one top tennis official, the players "went ballistic." For the newly appointed ATP CEO Adam Helfant, the players meeting on the eve of the Australian Open offered a somewhat startling insight into just what he has got himself into.

From various accounts emanating from people who attended, the meeting roused emotions as well as a wide disparity of views, most of them centered on the change in the allocation of points on the ATP ranking list — the intravenous drip from which the life blood of a player’s career flows.

Skirting the detail, which not everyone understands, the Etienne de Villiers regime managed to get two main changes enacted — a new points allocation that offers a far greater margin between later rounds of tournaments as well as between big tournaments and little tournaments and, in addition, the allocation of points for playing Davis Cup.

The issue was kicked off by a long and impassioned speech from Mikhail Youzhny’s coach Boris Sobkin. By the time Sobkin sat down, some twenty minutes after he had started, many players applauded.

"Yes, a lot of people in the room supported what Boris said," agreed Israeli doubles expert Andy Ram.

Basically, Sobkin was complaining about the new structure which appears to favor the top players who, in some cases, will earn twice as many points as they used to for reaching the semifinals or final of a Grand Slam or ATP Masters 1000 event. This will, inevitably, make it more difficult for younger players to climb the ranking list and break into the higher echelons of the game.

Or, as Phil Dent points out, a player returning to the tour after a long injury like Phil’s son, Taylor Dent. "Taylor’s basically starting again so this doesn’t sound like good news," said Dent.

As far as the Davis Cup point allocation is concerned I have yet to find anyone in a players lounge who is in favor of it. Everyone can see that it is discriminatory, not least Marcos Baghdatis who is immediately handicapped by the fact that he comes from a nation, Cyprus, that has no other player remotely capable of playing at the standard required to help Baghdatis get promoted to the World Group. Given the performance of the British men who tried to qualify here at Melbourne Parlk last week — they all lost in the first round — the same could be said for Andy Murray.

Australia’s Wally Masur and the Swede, Peter Lundgren, two players who were on the tour in the days when the ranking list was based on an average number of tournaments played, both harked back to that system with a certain nostalgia. Quite apart from the most recent changes to the current ranking, Masur and Lundgren both spoke wistfully about the average system which did not encourage players to play as much as today.

"Now there is so much pressure for players to just get on court and play whether or not they are really fit or motivated," said Masur. "In the old days, when you lost in the first round you got the dreaded ‘one pointer’ and that dragged down your average. Once you had decided to enter, everybody fought like crazy to avoid a one pointer. I am not sure that is always the case today because there is no real penalty for not winning a match."

Obviously, the ranking system — so central to the whole welfare of the tour — is something that Helfant will need to investigate but, right now, the focus is what is about to happen on court as a year of huge anticipation gets under way. The weekend winds have died away, the sun is burning bright and hot out of clear Melbourne skies and everyone can’t wait to get the show on the road.

No one is quite sure what is going to happen and that, folks, is what sport is all about.

anon57
01-19-2009, 07:18 PM
Good to hear that apparently the players have also noticed that the new ranking system may be a disadvantage to the lower ranked players. Hopefully the players making a stand will lead to some positive changes in the new:retard: rankings system.

Horatio Caine
01-19-2009, 07:23 PM
the atp does hire good people doing stats (maybe because they are cheap to hire, lol) and i can believe that extensive mathematical modelling had been performed on the new ranking system.

this doesn't necessarily exclude any secret agenda to massage the rankings for a purpose (which may not 'fair') though ;)

that said, my gut feeling does agree with you that there won't be that much of a difference with the new but the transition may present some problems.

I'm sure that they probably did look into it before ultimately making the decision to adopt this new ranking structure...but as Action Jackson has already said, it isn't like the ATP hasn't made mistakes before. For instance, who can forget EDV confusing himself with the complex rules of Round Robin...probably the straw that broke the camel's back as far as that draw structure was concerned.


Thanks for posting the article Mellow Yellow. :yeah:


Hopefully the players making a stand will lead to some positive changes in the new:retard: rankings system.

The only positive change, in my eyes, is that the former ranking system be reinstated...there was nothing substantially wrong with it, imo. :shrug:

duong
01-19-2009, 07:35 PM
Basically, Sobkin was complaining about the new structure which appears to favor the top players who, in some cases, will earn twice as many points as they used to for reaching the semifinals or final of a Grand Slam or ATP Masters 1000 event.

with the new system, a top-player might be ranked at the top, concentrating only on the Slams, and, maybe, some Masters Series.

That might be interesting for top-fragile or old players like Tsonga for instance, or Federer, or Hewitt.

He would have to go to other MS or ATP500 tournaments, but he could go there without properly training.

This will, inevitably, make it more difficult for younger players to climb the ranking list and break into the higher echelons of the game.

Or, as Phil Dent points out, a player returning to the tour after a long injury like Phil’s son, Taylor Dent. "Taylor’s basically starting again so this doesn’t sound like good news," said Dent.

I don't think so : usually the young really talented players emerge in big tournaments. And are inconsistent.
Then the new system is made for them.

Players emerging painfully after playing many challengers are rather older players, and less talented.

And a player as talented as Taylor Dent certainly prefers coming back by making some big results than playing many many challengers.


As far as the Davis Cup point allocation is concerned I have yet to find anyone in a players lounge who is in favor of it. Everyone can see that it is discriminatory, not least Marcos Baghdatis who is immediately handicapped by the fact that he comes from a nation, Cyprus, that has no other player remotely capable of playing at the standard required to help Baghdatis get promoted to the World Group. Given the performance of the British men who tried to qualify here at Melbourne Parlk last week — they all lost in the first round — the same could be said for Andy Murray.

Baghdatis or Murray will be able tou count one more ATP500 tournament than the others, and for the same points, I think it's far more comfortable than several Davis Cup ties with 5 sets-matches, doubles and a lot of pressure.

Australia’s Wally Masur and the Swede, Peter Lundgren, two players who were on the tour in the days when the ranking list was based on an average number of tournaments played, both harked back to that system with a certain nostalgia. Quite apart from the most recent changes to the current ranking, Masur and Lundgren both spoke wistfully about the average system which did not encourage players to play as much as today.

"Now there is so much pressure for players to just get on court and play whether or not they are really fit or motivated," said Masur. "In the old days, when you lost in the first round you got the dreaded ‘one pointer’ and that dragged down your average. Once you had decided to enter, everybody fought like crazy to avoid a one pointer. I am not sure that is always the case today because there is no real penalty for not winning a match."


It's a very very strong point :

it's very clear that with the new system, you will see even more often some players playing without motivation.
And if you add the corruption problem ...

And it's quite clear that the system in Masur's time was fitter in that perspective.

duong
01-19-2009, 07:43 PM
Personally I prefer the old system but not at all for the same reasons which are displayed by many.

I think the difference between the final rounds and the others is too high.

And that Masur and Lundgren's point is a very strong point.

Also I think the allocation of the ATP-500 tournaments is not good, if players still prefer playing in the Queens, Doha and Marseille, than Acapulco or Memphis.
It will be strange that Acapulco and Memphis give twice more points than these tournaments.

But there are also some good points in the new ranking system imo, including the points for the Davis Cup and the slight gap increasing between the ATP-tournaments and the challengers.

I've seen too many players making good results in challengers and not able of anything in ATP tournaments.

anon57
01-19-2009, 07:49 PM
The only positive change, in my eyes, is that the former ranking system be reinstated...there was nothing substantially wrong with it, imo. :shrug:
I don't know why they felt the need to change the old system either, I'm no rankings expert but imo there didn't appear to be any major flaws with the old system either so who knows why the drastic changes:scratch:. I have serious doubts on whether players noting flaws will actually lead to the ATP changing the rankings again but still:shrug:

amirbachar
01-20-2009, 01:15 AM
Personally I prefer the old system but not at all for the same reasons which are displayed by many.

I think the difference between the final rounds and the others is too high.

And that Masur and Lundgren's point is a very strong point.

Also I think the allocation of the ATP-500 tournaments is not good, if players still prefer playing in the Queens, Doha and Marseille, than Acapulco or Memphis.
It will be strange that Acapulco and Memphis give twice more points than these tournaments.

But there are also some good points in the new ranking system imo, including the points for the Davis Cup and the slight gap increasing between the ATP-tournaments and the challengers.

I've seen too many players making good results in challengers and not able of anything in ATP tournaments.

My opinion exactly.
I always said the best thing will be to use the golden ratio for all tournaments -
that is for GS for example:
2000
1240
760
480
280
180
100
10

duong
01-20-2009, 08:39 AM
My opinion exactly.
I always said the best thing will be to use the golden ratio for all tournaments -
that is for GS for example:
2000
1240
760
480
280
180
100
10

I think the golden ratio still gives too much difference in the final rounds.

The golden ratio means W=F+SF (2000=1240+760)

I think F+SF should be better.

The golden ratio is quite near to the new system : 2000 1240 760 instead of 2000 1200 720

I preferred the old ratios 2000 1400 900

duong
01-20-2009, 08:44 AM
Btw, maybe a reason why Sobkin is especially involved in the critics is maybe that

Moscow and St Petersburg tournaments are especially downgraded in the new system.

Maybe I'm not fair for Sobkin, but Moscow and St Petersburg's case is a real problem for them, that has to be said : they are the more downgraded tournaments together with Doha.

And we saw this year that the level in Doha was still very high.

As well as in Brisbane and Sydney actually. Not sure at all that Memphis and Acapulco will be as good as these, according to their entry-lists.

amirbachar
01-20-2009, 09:04 PM
I think the golden ratio still gives too much difference in the final rounds.

The golden ratio means W=F+SF (2000=1240+760)

I think F+SF should be better.

The golden ratio is quite near to the new system : 2000 1240 760 instead of 2000 1200 720

I preferred the old ratios 2000 1400 900

Why do you think that? these numbers are so random.
I don't know if the golden ration is the best one, but there need to be a constant ratio between all rounds IMO.
I think 2 is too much so the golden ration seems like a reasonable choise, and it gives a nice view of the points (SF+F=W,QF+SF=F,...).
And is is true that in last rounds it is a bit like the system now (ratio 1.66) but in the early rounds it is nothing like what we have now.

duong
01-21-2009, 12:35 AM
Attention : this post is not intended to those who hate figures like hell :devil:

Why do you think that? these numbers are so random.
I don't know if the golden ration is the best one, but there need to be a constant ratio between all rounds IMO.
I think 2 is too much so the golden ration seems like a reasonable choise, and it gives a nice view of the points (SF+F=W,QF+SF=F,...).
And is is true that in last rounds it is a bit like the system now (ratio 1.66) but in the early rounds it is nothing like what we have now.

Personally I don't think that it's necessary that there is a constant ratio between the points for all rounds (except that it's easy to remember) :

W=coef*F
F=coef*SF
... (coef=1.62 for the "golden ratio")

I think that what's relevant is what you earn thanks to ONE MATCH-VICTORY in one round.

Which means that what's relevant for me is not W, F ...

but rather W-F, F-SF ...

In that case, if you want to use a rigorous rule, you may impose that there is a constant ratio between (W-F) and (F-SF), (F-SF) and (SF-QF) ...

W-F=coef * (F-SF)
F-SF=coef * (SF-QF)

Note that with the golden ratio you also have this property,

with the same coefficient 1.62 :

W-F= 1.62 * (F-SF)
F-SF= 1.62 * (SF-QF)
etc ...

BUT ... if you don't ask for the property W/F=F/SF ...

you can allow some other coefficients than 1.62.

As I said, I think 1.62 is a too high ratio between a match-victory in one round and a match-victory in another round.

Hence my proposal would be to use the ratio 1.4 :

here's what you get

W 2000
F 1372
SF 923
QF 603
R16 374
R32 210
R64 93
R128 10

(as I imposed that a win is worth 2000 points, and a loss in the 1st round is worth 10 points, like in the old and the new system).

As you can see this is quite near to the old system points for a win, final and semi-final,

but gives more points between the 2nd round and the quarter-finals (which means for a win between the 1st round and the R16):

Proposal 2000 1372 923 603 374 210 93 10
Old system 2000 1400 900 500 300 150 70 10
Golden ratio 2000 1240 760 470 290 180 110 70
New system 2000 1200 720 360 180 90 45 10



Of course this is a totally opposite system to the one which has been chosen (because they want to give more difference between the rounds),

but that would be my favorite actually,

since in the old system, I was Ok with the final rounds but I thought that there were not enough points especially for an access to the quarter-finals and to the 3rd round.

In the new system, the difference between the rounds is very very high (except for a victory in the 2nd round which is quite poorly valuated).

With the golden ratio you are right that it's lower in the first rounds ... but still too high for me.

And the other problem is that you have to start with 70 points for a loss in the 1st round ! :confused:

Here you know my favorite.

EDIT : I just noticed that you have adjusted the golden ratio ranking to allow 10 points in the 1st round.

What's quite strange with your proposal is that a victory in the 2nd round gives less points (80) than a victory in the 1st round (90).

duong
01-21-2009, 01:19 AM
EDIT : I just noticed that you didn't use the golden ratio yourself, but you have adjusted it to allow 10 points in the 1st round.

what's quite strange with your proposal is that a victory in the 2nd round gives less points (80) than a victory in the 1st round (90).

If your purpose is to be near to the golden ratio,

but you want 10 points for a first round and 2000 for a final round,

here's what I might suggest you :

W 2000
F 1211
SF 725
QF 424
R16 239
R32 124
R64 54
R128 10

this ensures W-F= 1.62*(F-SF) etc ...

duong
01-21-2009, 02:42 PM
For your information,

with a ratio 1.5 instead of 1.4 (which means every match-victory gives 50% more points than the victory in the previous round), you get something very near to the previous system in the first rounds, but only different for the finalist and the semi-finalists :

Old system 2000 1400 900 500 300 150 70 10
With 1,5 ratio 2000 1295 826 513 304 165 72 10

Horatio Caine
01-29-2009, 08:39 PM
Just duplicating an update on this issue by ZackBusner - many thanks to him/her for the link and translation. I will have a proper update on this thread next week...

EDIT - will provide a proper update after TMS Miami. I have noticed a few interesting trends under the new ranking system, but let's allow enough time for some of these changes to "bed in."

A local newspaper reporter in Heilbronn asked some challenger players what they think about the new rankings system. Nobody likes it.
http://www.stimme.de/sport/mix/sonstige;art16469,1448225

Arnaud Clement: It's not fair. It's much easier for the top 30 players to keep their ranking.

Michael Berrer (member of players council): These things were decided more than a year ago. We as players could change only some details.

Philipp Petzschner: There is hardly anyone who supports the new system. I am skeptical, as well.

Lu Yen-Hsun: The guys from the ATP said: "Well, let's at least give it a try." But I don't like it. We can't change it for the current year anymore. But I hope we can change it for 2010.

Florian Mayer: I am far from enthusiastic. You get rewarded for playing very well, that's a good thing. But the difference between a final and a quarterfinal is a bit too big now.

Benjamin Becker: I don't know any players who like the new system.

Action Jackson
01-29-2009, 09:15 PM
No surprise the majority of players hate this system, but they have to stick with it through 2009.

It's like Koubek they aren't going to be bothering with challengers, though that's the route they normally would go through after coming back from long term injuries, and Taylor Dent is in the same situation as the article Mellow Yellow stated.

duong
01-29-2009, 10:49 PM
I would personally be happy if the old system came back, but Arnaud Clément's statement looks quite badly informed :

with the new system, for the rankings (it may well be different for the money :devil:) you have a big advantage if you were ranked above 30 (let's say between 30 and 50) in the end of last year.

Because the problem for the top-30 players will be that they cannot count more than 2 ATP250 results : you will see in february some of them will not be able to count some points because of that new rule (it might be Almagro, Robredo, Cilic or Tsonga).

I'm not sure they are aware of that because they play so many ATP250 tournaments :confused:

Few of them like Andreev and Simon have understood the new deal and really concentrate on ATP500 tournaments.

You had seen from my simulation that several players (amon them Ljubicic or Monaco) who were in the top-30 in the end of 2007 would have lost many ranks because of this rule.

amirbachar
01-30-2009, 01:35 AM
Attention : this post is not intended to those who hate figures like hell :devil:



Personally I don't think that it's necessary that there is a constant ratio between the points for all rounds (except that it's easy to remember) :

W=coef*F
F=coef*SF
... (coef=1.67 for the "golden ratio")

I think that what's relevant is what you earn thanks to ONE MATCH-VICTORY in one round.

Which means that what's relevant for me is not W, F ...

but rather W-F, F-SF ...

In that case, if you want to use a rigorous rule, you may impose that there is a constant ratio between (W-F) and (F-SF), (F-SF) and (SF-QF) ...

W-F=coef * (F-SF)
F-SF=coef * (SF-QF)

Note that with the golden ratio you also have this property,

with the same coefficient 1.67 :

W-F= 1.67 * (F-SF)
F-SF= 1.67 * (SF-QF)
etc ...

BUT ... if you don't ask for the property W/F=F/SF ...

you can allow some other coefficients than 1.67.

As I said, I think 1.67 is a too high ratio between a match-victory in one round and a match-victory in another round.

Hence my proposal would be to use the ratio 1.4 :

here's what you get

W 2000
F 1372
SF 923
QF 603
R16 374
R32 210
R64 93
R128 10

(as I imposed that a win is worth 2000 points, and a loss in the 1st round is worth 10 points, like in the old and the new system).

As you can see this is quite near to the old system points for a win, final and semi-final,

but gives more points between the 2nd round and the quarter-finals (which means for a win between the 1st round and the R16):

Proposal 2000 1372 923 603 374 210 93 10
Old system 2000 1400 900 500 300 150 70 10
Golden ratio 2000 1197 717 429 257 154 92 55
New system 2000 1200 720 360 180 90 45 10



Of course this is a totally opposite system to the one which has been chosen (because they want to give more difference between the rounds),

but that would be my favorite actually,

since in the old system, I was Ok with the final rounds but I thought that there were not enough points especially for an access to the quarter-finals and to the 3rd round.

In the new system, the difference between the rounds is very very high (except for a victory in the 2nd round which is quite poorly valuated).

With the golden ratio you are right that it's lower in the first rounds ... but still too high for me.

And the other problem is that you have to start with 55 points for a loss in the 1st round ! :confused:

Here you know my favorite.

EDIT : I just noticed that you didn't use the golden ratio yourself, but you have adjusted it to allow 10 points in the 1st round.

Your proposal looks like the old system for the 1st rounds until the quarter-finals, and closer to the new system for the semi-final and final.

It's not what I prefer actually because I prefer the old system in the final rounds, and I rather correct it for the first rounds.

Especially what's quite strange with your proposal is that a victory in the 2nd round gives less points (80) than a victory in the 1st round (90).
A victory in the 3rd round also doesn't give much more than a victory in the 2nd round (1.25).

I think you should use a higher progression in these first rounds, because the progression is so huge in the final rounds, and so small in the 1st rounds !

I just saw your reply now - I did use the golden ratio, which is about 1.61 (the positive root of the equation x^2=x+1).
Of course the first round will be worth 10 points in any case.

About the fact the the first match is worth more than the 2nd one - I think it's actually a good thing (the WTA use this kind of points system), that's because 1/4 of the players are seeded, so when a player wins his first match he should be rewarded more that one normally thinks, because he will play a seeded player in 1/3 of the times on average.

I think you right about the constant coefficient for one match instead of total points. However, as you said, with the golden ration you get both...

amirbachar
01-30-2009, 02:07 AM
For your information,

with a ratio 1.5 instead of 1.4 (which means every match-victory gives 50% more points than the victory in the previous round), you get something very near to the previous system in the first rounds, but only different for the finalist and the semi-finalists :

Old system 2000 1400 900 500 300 150 70 10
With 1,5 ratio 2000 1295 826 513 304 165 72 10

First of all, that a nice outcome...
I don't really understand what do you mean with a ratio 1.5 - with the same ratio you can get all kind of systems - it depends on the points for the final, which is another degree of freedom.

out_here_grindin
01-30-2009, 02:10 AM
Goos system. I don't like having jokers like Devilder in top 100 and getting torched in 1st round of a major everytime.

But it will punish players who are concisitenly i8n the quarters and reward players who have a fluke final run. That isn't good

amirbachar
01-30-2009, 02:13 AM
I would personally be happy if the old system came back, but Arnaud Clément's statement looks quite badly informed :

with the new system, for the rankings (it may well be different for the money :devil:) you have a big advantage if you were ranked above 30 (let's say between 30 and 50) in the end of last year.

Because the problem for the top-30 players will be that they cannot count more than 2 ATP250 results : you will see in february some of them will not be able to count some points because of that new rule (it might be Almagro, Robredo, Cilic or Tsonga).

I'm not sure they are aware of that because they play so many ATP250 tournaments :confused:

Few of them like Andreev and Simon have understood the new deal and really concentrate on ATP500 tournaments.

You had seen from my simulation that several players (amon them Ljubicic or Monaco) who were in the top-30 in the end of 2007 would have lost many ranks because of this rule.

just a small correction - what you said is true if they qualified for all Masters Series events last year.

duong
01-30-2009, 08:33 AM
About the fact the the first match is worth more than the 2nd one - I think it's actually a good thing (the WTA use this kind of points system), that's because 1/4 of the players are seeded, so when a player wins his first match he should be rewarded more that one normally thinks, because he will play a seeded player in 1/3 of the times on average.


I don't think it justifies that the 1st round should be worth more than the 2nd one, because they have twice more chances to meet a seeded player in the 2nd round than in the 1st round :lol:

PS : you are right about the golden ratio (rather 1.62), I really don't know why I used 1.67 :confused: Anyway, fortunately, it gave quite near results.

duong
01-30-2009, 08:34 AM
First of all, that a nice outcome...
I don't really understand what do you mean with a ratio 1.5 - with the same ratio you can get all kind of systems - it depends on the points for the final, which is another degree of freedom.

if you choose 2000 points for the winner and 10 points for the 1st round, there's no more degree of freedom.

amirbachar
01-30-2009, 03:09 PM
if you choose 2000 points for the winner and 10 points for the 1st round, there's no more degree of freedom.

Oh OK, you right.

masterclass
04-30-2012, 01:08 PM
Bumping...

Now that the latest rankings system changes have been in place for a few years, can we glean anything additional or confirm what has been stated about the impact the changes have had?

Also, some questions I had:

It has seemed more difficult for young players to significantly rise in the rankings. Can we only attribute that to lack of quality among the younger players as compared to the senior players or has the rankings system itself influenced that?

Is it more difficult for the very top players (the ones that have won slams in the last 4 years), to stay at number 1, because if you don't repeat a good year precisely (e.g. final instead of win), or masters, the point differential is more significant, and you drop a ranking or two, only to have it reverse itself the next year, because then you can benefit more?

Respectfully,
masterclass

Action Jackson
04-30-2012, 01:19 PM
The rankings should never have been changed, but they are there now and don't need to be changed as it is.

Entry Ranking is fine as it is. The game is more physical that's the reason it takes longer to breakthrough.