Should the ATP award quality points? [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Should the ATP award quality points?

Leena
02-06-2005, 05:19 PM
As in, bonus points for beating higher ranked players... like the WTA does now, and the ATP used to a few years ago.

I used to strongly feel quality points were necessary... especially in the women's game where beating a top player used to mean something... nowadays, bleh. It only causes problems in the rankings (i.e. Garbin beating a sick Henin-Hardenne at RG, and earning more points by losing in the 3R, then most QF's earned).

The men's game has too much depth, and too many surface specialists for it to work, IMO.

I'd love to hear yours.

Washa Koroleva
02-06-2005, 05:28 PM
I think yes as those points are more meaningful than the other ones somehow.

Chloe le Bopper
02-06-2005, 05:43 PM
I've always been opposed to quality points. Does anybody *really* deserve an extra 100 points or so for knocking off Roddick at Roland Garros or Coria at Wimbledon? Of course, sometimes you have a guy who makes the final without beating a single player in the top 50, while the other guy in the final faced the draw from Hell... but those are the ropes. I'm not willing to concede that this is a good argument for quality points. Once in a while there is an occasion where you think "too bad he gets nothing for that", but overall it evens out and the ATP is better off without them ;)

EternalFlame
02-06-2005, 06:57 PM
I voted "no". I don't think it's right.
btw: I dunno so much about this rule. Is it the same case if number2 player beats number1? Will Serena get bonus points if she beats Lindsay for example..?

ae wowww
02-06-2005, 07:20 PM
As in, bonus points for beating higher ranked players... like the WTA does now, and the ATP used to a few years ago.

I used to strongly feel quality points were necessary... especially in the women's game where beating a top player used to mean something... nowadays, bleh. It only causes problems in the rankings (i.e. Garbin beating a sick Henin-Hardenne at RG, and earning more points by losing in the 3R, then most QF's earned).

The men's game has too much depth, and too many surface specialists for it to work, IMO.

I'd love to hear yours.
It is a good idea.. but I don't think they should. It doesnt operate in many other sports, and I think a win's a win.

Deboogle!.
02-06-2005, 07:23 PM
I've always been opposed to quality points. Does anybody *really* deserve an extra 100 points or so for knocking off Roddick at Roland Garros or Coria at Wimbledon? Of course, sometimes you have a guy who makes the final without beating a single player in the top 50, while the other guy in the final faced the draw from Hell... but those are the ropes. I'm not willing to concede that this is a good argument for quality points. Once in a while there is an occasion where you think "too bad he gets nothing for that", but overall it evens out and the ATP is better off without them ;)

Pretty much took the words right out of my mouth :yeah:

carrotyoung
02-06-2005, 07:39 PM
I think that rather than quality points, have some sort of surface ranking system. It's absurd that Roddick should get a higher seed than Coria at Roland Garros.

Leena
02-06-2005, 07:45 PM
I think that rather than quality points, have some sort of surface ranking system. It's absurd that Roddick should get a higher seed than Coria at Roland Garros.
We had that before in Grand Slams... and holy heck ensued. :p

That's a problem that I don't think will ever be solved.

Leena
02-06-2005, 07:45 PM
I voted "no". I don't think it's right.
btw: I dunno so much about this rule. Is it the same case if number2 player beats number1? Will Serena get bonus points if she beats Lindsay for example..?
Yes.

Chloe le Bopper
02-06-2005, 07:47 PM
I think that rather than quality points, have some sort of surface ranking system. It's absurd that Roddick should get a higher seed than Coria at Roland Garros.
Wimbledon does have a surface ranking - not that it makes a dramatic difference. I don't support that idea either ;)

CooCooCachoo
02-06-2005, 07:47 PM
No. I agree with some posters above :)

ae wowww
02-06-2005, 07:50 PM
The quality of the players would be opinionated? I know you could say ranking/seedings etc.. but I just don't think it'd be right.

Leena
02-06-2005, 07:51 PM
Wimbledon does have a surface ranking - not that it makes a dramatic difference. I don't support that idea either ;)
Wimbly had to drastically cut down how they changed seeds, however...

You know they badly wanted to put Timmy as a Top 4 seed.

athie
02-06-2005, 07:54 PM
Quite simply NO
As Andy mentioned a win is a win and the concept of ‘bonus points’ becomes far too complex.

ae wowww
02-06-2005, 08:09 PM
Quite simply NO
As Andy mentioned a win is a win and the concept of ‘bonus points’ becomes far too complex.
It makes the draw more unfair too... the average guys (not last acceptance) get a medium draw--no shots at big guys, so less chance to win big points.

Cervantes
02-06-2005, 08:14 PM
I've always been opposed to quality points. Does anybody *really* deserve an extra 100 points or so for knocking off Roddick at Roland Garros or Coria at Wimbledon? Of course, sometimes you have a guy who makes the final without beating a single player in the top 50, while the other guy in the final faced the draw from Hell... but those are the ropes. I'm not willing to concede that this is a good argument for quality points. Once in a while there is an occasion where you think "too bad he gets nothing for that", but overall it evens out and the ATP is better off without them ;)

Totally agree, Chloe summed it up nicely for us all.

TheBoiledEgg
02-06-2005, 08:19 PM
the only reason they had to stop giving out bonus pts was of the ridiculous "Champions Farce"
as the ATP wanted to publicise its new useless rank Race, so they couldnt have a person beating Santoro (the 1st leader of the new Farce) 50 bonus pts, so they had to stop it.

they've recently changed their views on the Entry Rank (yes they started to call it Entry Rank and not System :rolls: )so they might bring it back.

Would be funny as Kendoll saying "I was #3 in the World" :haha:

Leena
02-06-2005, 08:22 PM
I've never even understood the point of the Race...

I guess they made it so it didn't confuse the fans... but it only served to massively confused fans the first year when there was 2 rankings.

Scotso
02-07-2005, 12:22 AM
Becca, the same can be said in the other direction...

Who DOESN'T deserve more points for knocking off Federer in the first round of Wimbledon than knocking off Alejandro Falla?

Or who doesn't deserve more points for beating Coria in the first round of Roland Garros than beating Peter Wessels?

Havok
02-07-2005, 12:34 AM
No. It's bad enough we have a slew of clay court specialists whoring it up on clay all the time to inflate their rankings. If we had quality points, we would have such retarded rankings, even moreso when you see some players ranked really high when they can't do nothing at all off the dirt.

Leena
02-07-2005, 12:35 AM
Who's to say that Al Falla isn't the better player that day?

Like I said in the first post... is it right that Garbin got more points at RG for reaching the 3rd round, than Mauresmo got for reaching the Quarters?

It's just too much of an imperfect system.

Havok
02-07-2005, 12:39 AM
First off Christine shouldn't even have played at Rg so she's the one who fucked it up and inflated Garbin's rank. Garbin is shit and when Rg 05 comes along, she will plumet back to her ranking where she belongs. Bonus points on the women's side does tend to make more sense because you very rarely have low ranked players knocking off the top seeds, but I'm sure everyone is praying they draw Dementieva, pathetic serve and all, to be drawn in their half for extra points. It isn't done the greatest on the WTA, but its outcome if implemented on the ATP tour would be way worse.

Scotso
02-07-2005, 01:19 AM
No. It's bad enough we have a slew of clay court specialists whoring it up on clay all the time to inflate their rankings. If we had quality points, we would have such retarded rankings, even moreso when you see some players ranked really high when they can't do nothing at all off the dirt.

Almost as bad as Roddick playing pee-wee hard court events when he can't do anything on clay, eh?

WyveN
02-07-2005, 01:28 AM
Who DOESN'T deserve more points for knocking off Federer in the first round of Wimbledon than knocking off Alejandro Falla?

Or who doesn't deserve more points for beating Coria in the first round of Roland Garros than beating Peter Wessels?

If they are good enough to beat healthy Federer or Coria on their best surfaces then they should be able go far in the tournament anyway.

Chloe le Bopper
02-07-2005, 03:12 AM
Becca, the same can be said in the other direction...

Who DOESN'T deserve more points for knocking off Federer in the first round of Wimbledon than knocking off Alejandro Falla?

Or who doesn't deserve more points for beating Coria in the first round of Roland Garros than beating Peter Wessels?

I think that I accepted that there were occasions where you might stop and think "but... he should be getting more for this!"... however, it is my position that it evens out. While there are times it seems it would be nice if they got the points, there are other times when it woudl be ridiculous.

Chloe le Bopper
02-07-2005, 03:12 AM
No. It's bad enough we have a slew of clay court specialists whoring it up on clay all the time to inflate their rankings. ...

Like who? :)

Aphex
02-07-2005, 03:19 AM
No. It's bad enough we have a slew of clay court specialists whoring it up on clay all the time to inflate their rankings...
"Whoring it up ( :scratch: )" in your five optionals...
That can go for indoors and hardcourt specialists as well. Only grasscourters will have problems.

Chloe le Bopper
02-07-2005, 03:21 AM
"Whoring it up ( :scratch: )" in your five optionals...
That can go for indoors and hardcourt specialists as well. Only grasscourters will have problems.
It's only not okay when people who excel on clay do it :)

Action Jackson
02-07-2005, 03:24 AM
No. It's bad enough we have a slew of clay court specialists whoring it up on clay all the time to inflate their rankings. If we had quality points, we would have such retarded rankings, even moreso when you see some players ranked really high when they can't do nothing at all off the dirt.

Great pearl of wisdom there one of your better ones. In reality players who excel on the faster surfaces do it, yes that means hardcourt and indoors as well. Söderling, Spadea they can do it, but that's ok, because they are no clay whores.

Too bad about the grass specialists.

Leena
02-07-2005, 03:24 AM
It's only not okay when people who excel on clay do it :)
Marc Rosset is Tall:

Exactly. Heja Kent Carlsson.

Chloe le Bopper
02-07-2005, 03:26 AM
Players who excel on clay are not real tennis players and should be banned from tennis.

Leena
02-07-2005, 03:27 AM
First off Christine shouldn't even have played at Rg so she's the one who fucked it up and inflated Garbin's rank. Garbin is shit and when Rg 05 comes along, she will plumet back to her ranking where she belongs. Bonus points on the women's side does tend to make more sense because you very rarely have low ranked players knocking off the top seeds, but I'm sure everyone is praying they draw Dementieva, pathetic serve and all, to be drawn in their half for extra points. It isn't done the greatest on the WTA, but its outcome if implemented on the ATP tour would be way worse.
Yes, true... Taxi will drop back down after RG.

With just those 200 bonus points... that moved her up from the 80's to the 50's in the rankings. That means direct entry into better main draws and qualifying. For a year. That affects the whole tour.

Action Jackson
02-07-2005, 03:28 AM
Yes, they should be banned, it's not their fault that some of them can actually use angles and something resembling tactics and know how to effectively play dropshots.

That's bad for tennis, go the brainless bashers they make the game stimulating.

Leena
02-07-2005, 03:28 AM
Players who excel on clay are not real tennis players and should be banned from tennis.
I guess I can only root for Gonzo, Verkerk and C. Costa then. Blah.

Leena
02-07-2005, 03:28 AM
Yes, they should be banned, it's not their fault that some of them can actually use angles and something resembling tactics and know how to effectively play dropshots.

That's bad for tennis, go the brainless bashers they make the game stimulating.
Andy stimulates me... *giggle*

vogus
02-07-2005, 04:12 AM
good lord, did Tati get 200 quality points for beating a sick JHH? I thought it was only a hundred.

In any case, the WTA should follow the ATP and get rid of the "quality points" part of the rankings.

Just like when VRP beat the fast-fading Hingy at Wimbly '01, Garbin has been able, for an entire year, to ride a ranking artificially inflated by some 40 positions (50th instead of 90th).

Leena
02-07-2005, 04:15 AM
Yep, double points in slams.

If they would fix the way they distribute bonus points... I might agree with it.

200 for beating #1 in a GS is simply too much.

It goes lower than that... if you beat a Top 16 in a slam... that's 70 points. #17 is worth 46. Those 24 points alone can be a big difference.

Bah, I don't know, just kill all bonus points, I guess.

vogus
02-07-2005, 04:23 AM
on the other hand, Garbin is a fun player to watch. If anyone was going to get a 200 point subsidy, i'm glad it was her, and not some slacker.

Horatio Caine
02-07-2005, 09:13 AM
Definitely NOT.

Fans are confused enough about how the rankings work without having another little rule implemented. Also, you end with players who make a one-off big appearance (at least for the time being) like Ventura and Ivo Minar who would have hugely over-inflated rankings. If that doesn't cause annoyance and confusion, I don't know what does.

Finally, suppose two players are competing for a final place at the Masters Cup. They are both in the semi-finals of the Paris Indoors, both on the same points and Player A plays a higher ranked player for the final, Player B a player 1 place below them. If Player A beat the higher ranked player but lost in the final to Player B, should Player A still deserve his place at the MC solely for beating the last higer ranked player whereas Player B does the maximum - wins Paris Indoors?