Did we really need ANOTHER ranking system? [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Did we really need ANOTHER ranking system?

tennischick
08-18-2005, 07:49 PM
i don't much mind the idea of the US Open Series -- clustering all of the tournies leading up to the Grand Slam in one tight package. fine. nice marketing tool. but did they have to introduce a ranking system to go along with it? so now we have Andre ranked as #1 in this new ranking system and Nadal as #2. not only does that not make any sense, but it just adds a layer of confusion with this "ranking-within-a-ranking" as Pat Mac put it. your casual tennis fan is confused enuf by the existence of two official ranking systems. did we really need a third?

(yes i am toying with this for a piece that i am working on so all feedback would be appreciated. thanks).
TC

mitalidas
08-18-2005, 08:15 PM
last year, when dick enberg was busy congratulating Roger on court after the USO he suddenly cut short and said "Oh and Lleyton congratulations for winning the US Open series". the crowd was definitely very confused --many people there are casual followers of tennis, not fanatical like us, and many wondered how hewitt was being congratulated for winning when Roger just did. Come on!!

Whistleway
08-18-2005, 08:17 PM
Any ranking in which AA is #1 gotta be a good ranking !! (that's what ATP is thinking ;))

Havok
08-18-2005, 09:07 PM
The USO Series' main goal is to promote tennis so yes a ranking needed to be implimented. The USO Series uses all these events to gain tv ratings, popularity, gain more $ and they need to repay all the players for getting the buzz back in tennis for these 2 solid months, and they would like to repay the top players of each tour with bonus money, so welcome the USO ranking system.

tennischick
08-18-2005, 09:07 PM
Any ranking in which AA is #1 gotta be a good ranking !! (that's what ATP is thinking ;))
i love Andre as much as the next person but i hope he doesn't ever put this on his resume. :p

tennischick
08-18-2005, 09:11 PM
The USO Series' main goal is to promote tennis so yes a ranking needed to be implimented. The USO Series uses all these events to gain tv ratings, popularity, gain more $ and they need to repay all the players for getting the buzz back in tennis for these 2 solid months, and they would like to repay the top players of each tour with bonus money, so welcome the USO ranking system.
thanks for responding :kiss:

i actually understand the need for the series. it's an excellent marketing tool. but are you saying that the ranking system had to be implemented only to pay out bonuses? at what point does a player qualify for the bonus? and is it possible for someone to win the USO Grand Slam but not be ranked #1 in the series? anyone? i'm trying to wrap my mind around this.

Havok
08-18-2005, 09:20 PM
thanks for responding :kiss:

i actually understand the need for the series. it's an excellent marketing tool. but are you saying that the ranking system had to be implemented only to pay out bonuses? at what point does a player qualify for the bonus? and is it possible for someone to win the USO Grand Slam but not be ranked #1 in the series? anyone? i'm trying to wrap my mind around this.
This is just the way I see the US Open Series. I mean think about it, if you create a series specifically during the NA hardcourt summer stretch, I mean doesn't there need to be a ranking just for that to keep track of how players are doing within the 2 months of hardcourt play? No the ranking system isn't solely there just for the payout but its just another ripple in the series that can also be implimented in the way journalists write their articles, which in turn may create more of a buzz and get more people involved in watching tennis. Even if people just tune in for these 2 months then dont give a shit about tennis for the rest of the year, it's still a job well done by the USO Series campaign.

Also just to respond to your part about what point a player qualifies for any bonuses, the top 3 is a common way to come to a quick solution. It's like at the Olympics or other sporting events, if you come any lower than 4th place all you get is a 'thanks for participating" and walk home empty handed. To me it makes sense that the top 3 of each tour are compensated for their effort through those 2 months. You don't get inside the top 5/3 in those seperate rankings by not getting far in at least one big important event included in the series. Hope that helps in any way possible :shrug:.

tennischick
08-18-2005, 09:40 PM
that helps a lot. but the angle i am going with in my article is that they could have created all of the buzz and excitement without confusing people with another ranking system. not that my puny opinion will change a fart but that's just how i feel. ;)

thanks for giving me the chance to think out loud :kiss:

jtipson
08-18-2005, 09:40 PM
...at what point does a player qualify for the bonus? and is it possible for someone to win the USO Grand Slam but not be ranked #1 in the series? anyone? i'm trying to wrap my mind around this.

The US Open itself is not actually included in the series, otherwise Federer would certainly have won it last year. I don't think he even finished in the top 3 (4th?) so didn't get his prize money increased at all.

Given that the USO gives so many points though, I think it's right to leave it out of the series rankings because it would skew the results, and the bonus pool would just become extra prize-money for the USO quarter/semi-finalists (mind you, it did that anyway last year), rather than an incentive for the lower-ranked players who wouldn't expect to reach the last weekend of a Grand Slam.

tennischick
08-18-2005, 09:43 PM
The US Open itself is not actually included in the series, otherwise Federer would certainly have won it last year. I don't think he even finished in the top 3 (4th?) so didn't get his prize money increased at all.

Given that the USO gives so many points though, I think it's right to leave it out of the series rankings because it would skew the results, and the bonus pool would just become extra prize-money for the USO quarter/semi-finalists (mind you, it did that anyway last year), rather than an incentive for the lower-ranked players who wouldn't expect to reach the last weekend of a Grand Slam.
gotcha! :yeah:

it would be nice to find out if players find themselves more motivated bec of the new series. and is the source of their motivation the new internal ranking or just the extra money. my vote = ka-ching! ;)