Grand Slams should give more points [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Grand Slams should give more points

Topspindoctor
06-06-2011, 01:53 AM
Nadal has won 4/5 of the last slams and he is still dangerously close to losing #1 rank. I think slams should give more points and reward players who succeed on the big stage. I think giving 3000 points to a winner rather than 2000 is a lot more appropriate.

Thoughts?

guga2120
06-06-2011, 01:59 AM
No. You already get a 1000 more than winning a master series, which are huge. The problem is the schedule, not the way they assign points.

BigJohn
06-06-2011, 02:00 AM
Since it is a yearly ranking, what matter does it make to be holding 4/5 slams?

krakenzero
06-06-2011, 02:02 AM
No. Next question.

Apophis
06-06-2011, 02:18 AM
If you want to translate the value of slams into ranking points, you end up with something like 5000-10000 point per slam. Then you might as well base the rankings on slams only, because the rest is pretty much unimportant compared to slams in the end. But i prefer rankings based on the whole tour, so i think the factor 2 is ok.

Snowwy
06-06-2011, 02:20 AM
I think its good how it is.

Roddickominator
06-06-2011, 02:25 AM
Even though the clown that created this thread only thinks this is a good idea because it would benefit his hero, it's still a good idea. The Slams are what matter. Everybody wants to win these events....they bring their A-game and have to win best-of-five matches...of course there should be a huge amount of points that go to the players who perform well in these tournaments.

Satasonic
06-06-2011, 02:28 AM
I actually think it would be a better idea to make the masters 750 points instead of the 1000 they are. 1000 points is a very high amount for a tournament with 3 sets.

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

CCBH
06-06-2011, 02:43 AM
I prefer the idea of a 2-year ranking system. It will not be as harsh on players who are out of action for a while due to injuries etc.

MIMIC
06-06-2011, 02:50 AM
Let's say Masters were only worth 500 pts (finalist = 100) and Grand Slams were worth 3,000 pts (and finalists get 1,000). And for all intents and purposes, all other results get no points (and I'm not about to do a ranking system all the way to the 1st round, which consequently magnifies even more how much a slam title is worth):

Over the last 52-weeks

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

Hypothetical scenarios:

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

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

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

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

This will not work and people will still complain

Midnight Ninja
06-06-2011, 04:02 AM
On the flip side, isn't it unfair that somebody who has absolutely dominated the tour for the first six months is still not #1?

Topspindoctor
06-06-2011, 04:06 AM
On the flip side, isn't it unfair that somebody who has absolutely dominated the tour for the first six months is still not #1?

The game is about slams, though. Tournaments where players bring their best. 7 matches. Best of 5 sets. Someone who dominates slams should be solid #1. Nadal is currently not. His #1 spot is very weak even if he wins Wimby.

guga2120
06-06-2011, 04:40 AM
The game is about slams, though. Tournaments where players bring their best. 7 matches. Best of 5 sets. Someone who dominates slams should be solid #1.

Tennis is not just about the slams. Master Series, Davis Cup, WTF, all very important.

stewietennis
06-06-2011, 04:42 AM
On the flip side, isn't it unfair that somebody who has absolutely dominated the tour for the first six months is still not #1?

Winning one major and some events may have guaranteed the number one ranking in the Hewitt/Roddick era; it doesn't apply to the current era though.

To put it in perspective, in 2008 Nadal won Monte Carlo then Hamburg then the French Open then Wimbledon… and was still ranked Number 2.

shiaben
06-06-2011, 05:55 AM
I think slams should be 3000 as well. Why is it that someone who wins a few masters all of a sudden has the worth of someone who has won a slam? (a tournament that consists of hard fought tennis in 7 long grueling matches that span for 2 weeks).

Kat_YYZ
06-06-2011, 05:59 AM
Nadal has won 4/5 of the last slams and he is still dangerously close to losing #1 rank. I think slams should give more points and reward players who succeed on the big stage. I think giving 3000 points to a winner rather than 2000 is a lot more appropriate.

Thoughts?
:baby:

237 consecutive weeks at #1... no whining about the system... priceless :worship:

Audacity
06-06-2011, 07:23 AM
I actually think it would be a better idea to make the masters 750 points instead of the 1000 they are. 1000 points is a very high amount for a tournament with 3 sets.

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

I agree. I've always been under the impression that Masters offer too many points for guys like Murray to hover around the 3/4 ranking without actually winning any slams.

Timariot
06-06-2011, 07:25 AM
I agree. I've always been under the impression that Masters offer too many points for guys like Murray to hover around the 3/4 ranking without actually winning any slams.

Uh...where does it say that guys ranked #3-4 SHOULD win any Slams? There are only 4 Slams y'know, and if the top 2 guys win them all, who is supposed to be #3?

heya
06-06-2011, 07:29 AM
fed was #1 with only a few titles in 2005. his clown opponents should be awarded free vacations because they did nothing in tennis either.

acionescu
06-06-2011, 08:27 AM
My thought is that the OP didn't complain when fed was winning 3/4 slams per year and nadal was keeping it close because he was winning a lot in Masters :stupid:

There are already too much points in Slams, tennis is not only about the slams.

But make masters final best of 5, I agree, something muct differentiate them from MM.

Clydey
06-06-2011, 10:48 AM
Nadal has won 4/5 of the last slams and he is still dangerously close to losing #1 rank. I think slams should give more points and reward players who succeed on the big stage. I think giving 3000 points to a winner rather than 2000 is a lot more appropriate.

Thoughts?

Don't be absurd. They are already worth double that of anything else out there. And they certainly aren't twice as hard to win.

Clydey
06-06-2011, 10:51 AM
I think slams should be 3000 as well. Why is it that someone who wins a few masters all of a sudden has the worth of someone who has won a slam? (a tournament that consists of hard fought tennis in 7 long grueling matches that span for 2 weeks).

Because all of the best players are in the draw. I'm still struggling to understand why everyone thinks majors are so much more difficult to win.

GSMnadal
06-06-2011, 10:58 AM
Don't be absurd. They are already worth double that of anything else out there. And they certainly aren't twice as hard to win.

Tell that to a guy named Andy Murray...

Clydey
06-06-2011, 11:05 AM
Tell that to a guy named Andy Murray...

They are harder to win, but they aren't twice as hard. Also bear in mind that there are only 4 opportunities per season. That fact certainly helps create the illusion that they are much harder to win.

Does it prove that MS titles are harder to win if I point out that Del Potro has not won an MS event? Of course not. By the same token, Murray not winning a major does not really prove anything. If and when Murray wins a major, I'll say exactly the same thing: the majors are overrated.

MaxPower
06-06-2011, 11:10 AM
Retarded. If slams were worth more points, lets say 3000, imagine how much a qualifier would earn from an upset and going into QF. Already today players ranked 100-200 can climb 30 spots or more. Players ranked 50-60 somewhere and not even being seeded can get into top20 or even higher from a single slam. The ranking is there to show the individual strength between tennis players, not to satisfy certain fans and their claims for greatness for their favorite player. The more you make 1 single tournament matter the more it comes down to blind chance of having a good draw, good form, not being injured or what not. Slams are already borderline worth too much but after all that makes them more exciting

Audacity
06-06-2011, 11:14 AM
Uh...where does it say that guys ranked #3-4 SHOULD win any Slams? There are only 4 Slams y'know, and if the top 2 guys win them all, who is supposed to be #3?

Think of it this way:

A player must win 6 best of 3 matches to earn 1000 ranking points in a Masters 1000. (Ivan Ljubicic can do this.)

A player must in 6 best of 5 matches to earn 1200 points in a Grand Slam.

Best of 3 and best of 5 are two completely different ball games which is why players like Murray are so successful. This seems unbalanced to me. I see nothing wrong with reducing the amount of points earned in Masters tournaments.

Sonja1989
06-06-2011, 11:17 AM
No. I think the current ranking system is perfect. GS give enough points. Masters are difficult event too, most of top players play there for twice less points.

Saberq
06-06-2011, 11:22 AM
Nadal won 3 titles 1 Slam 1 Masters and Barcelona right?Djokovic won 1 GS 4 Masters Dubai and Nole Open...So no this year he does not deserve number 1 ranking...If you were to reward 3000 points for Slams think how much would Nadal lose if he loses in the final for example or god forbid semi or QF...So no 2000 points is more than enough....

homogenius
06-06-2011, 11:24 AM
The game is about slams, though. Tournaments where players bring their best. 7 matches. Best of 5 sets. Someone who dominates slams should be solid #1. Nadal is currently not. His #1 spot is very weak even if he wins Wimby.

Nadal dominated the slams (W W W QF vs W F SF SF)but Novak had better results outside.

Nadal : 3 titles (Monte-C, Tokyo, Barcelona) and 5 finals (Rome, Madrid, Miami, Indian W, WTF)
Djoko : 7 titles (Miami, Indian W, Rome, Madrid, Dubai, Bejing, Belgrade), one final in Basel + points from Davis Cup and a SF at WTF.

I don't see where is the problem.Looks ok to see them close in the ranking.

ToniTennis
06-06-2011, 11:32 AM
Honestly, I think this kind of debate should not be presented when your fave player is at risk of losing his rank. Reasonable as it can sound, it doesn´t seem to have the same punch. Plus, one can't deny that Nole has had so far a superb year and it took a wonderful Roger to stop him from escalating to #1.

Bump this thread again when Nadal is, say, #3 or below and it's been a while since he's been consistent at slams and I might vote yes.

Sophocles
06-06-2011, 11:33 AM
There is something strange about a player holding 3 slams being on the verge of losing the No. 1 ranking, but on the other hand something pretty strange has happened to bring this about, namely Djoker's extraordinary winning streak. The ranking change proposed would be a bad idea because players with little chance of winning slams (99.9% of the tour) would have no incentive to bother the rest of the year, & neither would players who were doing well in slams. If we want a genuine tour extending beyond 4 events, that's bad news.

tennisgolfguru
06-06-2011, 11:41 AM
I prefer the idea of a 2-year ranking system. It will not be as harsh on players who are out of action for a while due to injuries etc.

This exactly - it takes some of the pressure, both physical and otherwise, off of the players and it also rewards consistency yet does not punish so hard for players injuries. It is how they do it in other sports and how they should do it on the ATP.

Clydey
06-06-2011, 11:42 AM
Think of it this way:

A player must win 6 best of 3 matches to earn 1000 ranking points in a Masters 1000. (Ivan Ljubicic can do this.)

A player must in 6 best of 5 matches to earn 1200 points in a Grand Slam.

Best of 3 and best of 5 are two completely different ball games which is why players like Murray are so successful. This seems unbalanced to me. I see nothing wrong with reducing the amount of points earned in Masters tournaments.

Federer is on record as saying that he finds three set matches more difficult. So the one player people invariably reference when trying to put majors on a much loftier pedestal, doesn't believe what his fans spout.

So what if Ljubicic can win a MS title? He was a terrific player in his day. I can think of much greater upsets at both MS level and GS level.

Clydey
06-06-2011, 11:45 AM
There is something strange about a player holding 3 slams being on the verge of losing the No. 1 ranking, but on the other hand something pretty strange has happened to bring this about, namely Djoker's extraordinary winning streak. The ranking change proposed would be a bad idea because players with little chance of winning slams (99.9% of the tour) would have no incentive to bother the rest of the year, & neither would players who were doing well in slams. If we want a genuine tour extending beyond 4 events, that's bad news.

Precisely.

Everyone loves the majors because of their prestige. However, the rest of the tour would be essentially meaningless if the majors had their numerical worth bumped up.

Sophocles
06-06-2011, 11:46 AM
Federer is on record as saying that he finds three set matches more difficult. So the one player people invariably reference when trying to put majors on a much loftier pedestal, doesn't believe what his fans spout.

True, but I expect it's his way of saying best-of-5 allows more opportunity for his natural superiority to shine through. Match-ups aside, an inferior player can beat a superior if he's hot enough, but the longer the match the greater the chance of cooling off.

Clydey
06-06-2011, 11:52 AM
True, but I expect it's his way of saying best-of-5 allows more opportunity for his natural superiority to shine through. Match-ups aside, an inferior player can beat a superior if he's hot enough, but the longer the match the greater the chance of cooling off.

That is what he means. He still feels he has an advantage over 5 sets, though. That would make those events easier for him to win, so the argument really goes both ways.

I just feel that people overstate the importance of 5 sets, particularly when you get a day off in between matches. You might play over 3 sets in smaller events, but you do not get a day to recover.

Pipsy
06-06-2011, 11:56 AM
Think of it this way:

A player must win 6 best of 3 matches to earn 1000 ranking points in a Masters 1000. (Ivan Ljubicic can do this.)

A player must in 6 best of 5 matches to earn 1200 points in a Grand Slam.

Best of 3 and best of 5 are two completely different ball games which is why players like Murray are so successful. This seems unbalanced to me. I see nothing wrong with reducing the amount of points earned in Masters tournaments.

Except that in the Grand Slam scenario you will have faced one fewer top-level player to get to the final (e.g. you may have to beat world number 1 and 2 to win a Masters but will only have to face one of them to reach a GS final)

coolfish1103
06-06-2011, 11:59 AM
The only thing they should change is make Masters Series Best of 5 sets, not 3 sets. On top of that, don't lie the Masters Series right next to each other.

Points are fine as is.

Clydey
06-06-2011, 12:00 PM
The only thing they should change is make Masters Series Best of 5 sets, not 3 sets. On top of that, don't lie the Masters Series right next to each other.

Points are fine as is.

The final or every round?

MacTheKnife
06-06-2011, 12:10 PM
The age old question. Harder to win slams or MS1k events. Frankly I change my mind on this at times, but overall think the slams are tougher to win. But there are exceptions to that based on scheduling and conditions. Also agree that it is probably a bit easier for the better players to win slams simply because of the law of averages and the amount of time on court. More time for the cream to come to the top. This could be argued both ways.

But I do think the current point system is fine. I struggle trying to think of a sport with a better more fair way of ranking players or teams. But I can't seem to come up with one. Tennis rankings are excellent for determining the best player over a 52 week period.

There have always been instances where the #1 ranked player is not the best player currently.

rafa_maniac
06-06-2011, 12:10 PM
I both agree and disagree. Obviously a Slam is worth alot more than 2 MS titles to a player, but if you start giving out ridiculous numbers of points in Slams the top guys with the cushy seeded draws find it too easy to stay ahead in the rankings and the occasional fluke runs who take advantage of an open draw get too much credit. Maybe increase the points total of a winner to 2,500?

Chase Visa
06-06-2011, 12:44 PM
Current points are fine. In fact, you could argue that winning Masters series is just as tough as winning Slams, as you can't afford to play like a mug in the first couple of rounds, and the playing depth is far stronger, despite it only being 3 sets.

Ravel
06-06-2011, 01:02 PM
The real question is if Nadal had 0 slams and 5-6 masters titles in the past year but is #2, would you be asking for the Masters events to give more points cause it's "unfair" that he's won majority of masters events and isn't #1?

Fujee
06-06-2011, 01:07 PM
It's only weak due to the fact he lost so many points by not defending multiple titles and position finishes throughout the year, while yes the Grand Slams are the most important - defending your masters and warm up events are just as important as they dominate a large majority of the season, you can't just expect to clean up Slams and not tend to your commitments outside the 8 weeks of slam action a year.

FerrerAndNadal
06-07-2011, 01:51 AM
Yes about 3500, Nadal and Fed need bigger buffers over the slam chokers

fast_clay
06-07-2011, 02:07 AM
leave it alone... for a milennnia

buddyholly
06-07-2011, 02:36 AM
Nadal has won 4/5 of the last slams and he is still dangerously close to losing #1 rank. I think slams should give more points and reward players who succeed on the big stage. I think giving 3000 points to a winner rather than 2000 is a lot more appropriate.

Thoughts?

They already give too many points. The 1000 series have the same players, just one round less, but fewer rest days. No way is a slam twice as good as a Masters.

stewietennis
06-07-2011, 02:50 AM
Slams are more prestigious, have historical significance (in the sport) and bigger prize money. Slams are remembered and contribute greatly to a player's legacy. Masters aren't as important. Would Andy Murray trade two of his Masters titles for one US Open title? Most likely, yes. Would Roger trade one Aussie Title for two Masters Shields? Not likely. Are majors harder to win? Difficult to say. The matches are longer but you get more rest in between matches compared to Masters.

Should majors award more points than currently allocated? I think the current points system is fair. If a player is good enough to win a major, he should be good enough to maintain his ranking by winning some masters events. If a player flaked a major title, it'll be exposed based on how he does in masters events.