[scarecrows]

but some of the Challengers Soeda won had Futures entry lists

[Sonja1989]

Originally Posted by Li Ching Yuen

Has anyone ever told you that you sound like Nadal sometimes?

I find it endearing.

Not yet. You have interesting simile always.

[Filo V.]

Berlocq is probably the best example currently.

Soeda doesn't even fit this definition to me, because almost all of his good results in challengers are in weak challengers in Asia or poor entry lists in HC challengers when most guys are at better events. He's basically played the system to get where he is, and he'll probably be out of the top 100 after next week.

[Li Ching Yuen]

Originally Posted by scarecrows

but some of the Challengers Soeda won had Futures entry lists

Well, they're still challengers. And the guy has shown consistency. It's not like there haven't been guys ranked in the same range of spots in the rankings for as long as him.

How many challengers are there in total year-long btw?

[Renaud]

Originally Posted by Li Ching Yuen

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Go_Soeda

Soeda is not too good for challengers. If he played european ones he would not often reach semi finals.

[navy75]

With the way that the ATP has redesigned their rankings system, we will continue to see this back and forth occurring. The points system as it now currently stands over-rewards the challenger system like crazy (this coming from a huge challenger supporter), and it is just ridiculous. For example, a challenger win is either equal to or exceeds the points given to a semifinalist at a 250 event or a round of 32 at a best of five set Grand Slam, which is just crazy. So whoever wins next week's Leon challenger with a current 359 ranking cutoff and where the highest ranked player entering is 136 will get more points than a semifinalist in Dubai or Queens or a player that wins two matches at Roland Garros. Thus we will continue to see unknowns crack into these 65-120 positions, and then eventually slide back down after a bunch of main tour losses to be replaced by other players who had to pick up easy challenger points.

It's insane, and the ATP really needs to go back to not excessively weighting challenger results...

[Filo V.]

Originally Posted by Li Ching Yuen

If you follow the challenger tour you'll see that the level of play is significantly slower than in the tour. Basically most consistent players have a lot to gain from collecting the remains in matches against guys that actually have weapons but are inconsistent or/and headcases.

Clay is clay, most challengers on clay are won by specialists, guys that have played their whole life on the surface.

And on the faster surfaces, big servers always win. In a way, the challenger tour is a bit of a mirror of the 90's when the range in playing styles from winner to winner of tournaments was drastically different.

It's pretty interesting.

Great points, the difference in overall level is stark. Also, the real talents, they always rise to the surface after a while. As we saw Grigor and Berankis do at the end of last year. Players that actually are ATP quality rarely are unsuccessful in a big way in challengers.

[nellis_lv]

I think to make the adjustment from Challengers to the ATP level, you need at least one above-average weapon that could give top guys a hard time.

Whether it's a serve, a whipping forehand, an extraordinary backhand, or above-average defense/pushing/movement, etc.

I look at guys like Ryan Harrison and Grigor Dimitrov and I think, ok, they're pretty good on all aspects but they lack that one weapon.

[Li Ching Yuen]

Originally Posted by Filo V.

Berlocq is probably the best example currently.

Soeda doesn't even fit this definition to me, because almost all of his good results in challengers are in weak challengers in Asia or poor entry lists in HC challengers when most guys are at better events. He's basically played the system to get where he is, and he'll probably be out of the top 100 after next week.

There you have it. He fits the definition perfectly. He is good enough to get inside the Top100 for a little while but then immediately slips down the rankings simply because he can't retain that spot.

That's the barrier right there between a Challenger player and a Tour guy.

Chardy is going to play some challengers soon, that doesn't mean he's not good enough to jump back into the Top50.

That's the difference, Soeda will never get passed that nr.90 in the world even if his life depending on it.

[Filo V.]

Originally Posted by navy75

With the way that the ATP has redesigned their rankings system, we will continue to see this back and forth occurring. The points system as it now currently stands over-rewards the challenger system like crazy (this coming from a huge challenger supporter), and it is just ridiculous. For example, a challenger win is either equal to or exceeds the points given to a semifinalist at a 250 event or a round of 32 at a best of five set Grand Slam, which is just crazy. So whoever wins next week's Leon challenger with a current 359 ranking cutoff and where the highest ranked player entering is 136 will get more points than a semifinalist in Dubai or Queens or a player that wins two matches at Roland Garros. Thus we will continue to see unknowns crack into these 65-120 positions, and then eventually slide back down after a bunch of main tour losses to be replaced by other players who had to pick up easy challenger points.

It's insane, and the ATP really needs to go back to not excessively weighting challenger results...

That is a very great point and I totally agree, players should have to earn their places in the top 100 well and truly.

[Sonja1989]

Granollers was good example in last year, he played just few Challenger tournaments and he played three finals. And of course I'm very happy If he win two match in row in ATP level.
Sadly he don't play in challengers already.

[Li Ching Yuen]

Originally Posted by navy75

With the way that the ATP has redesigned their rankings system, we will continue to see this back and forth occurring. The points system as it now currently stands over-rewards the challenger system like crazy (this coming from a huge challenger supporter), and it is just ridiculous. For example, a challenger win is either equal to or exceeds the points given to a semifinalist at a 250 event or a round of 32 at a best of five set Grand Slam, which is just crazy. So whoever wins next week's Leon challenger with a current 359 ranking cutoff and where the highest ranked player entering is 136 will get more points than a semifinalist in Dubai or Queens or a player that wins two matches at Roland Garros. Thus we will continue to see unknowns crack into these 65-120 positions, and then eventually slide back down after a bunch of main tour losses to be replaced by other players who had to pick up easy challenger points.

It's insane, and the ATP really needs to go back to not excessively weighting challenger results...

True.

Like I've been saying all along. Take a tip from the American Sports Leagues. Completely separate the tour and the Challenger level. Just basically make a cutoff at the end of the year of 100 players that will play ONLY tour level tourneys. They get decent money from participating in the 1st rounds of Masters and slams anyway, doubles etc... plus there's the 250's which are a decent source too. Too help tighten the calendar just compress some of the tournaments and have like 2-3 minor 250s taking place every week so that everybody can play and have realistic chances of getting match wins.

And after 6 months or so, make that cutoff again based on the rankings. Whoever performed the worst drops to the challenger level. Whoever won the most points in challengers advances at tour level.

It's super simple and it will make things that much interesting.

The current rankings are flawed imo.

[JMG]

Originally Posted by Li Ching Yuen

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Go_Soeda

Soeda is definitely not too good for challengers. Not sure if he has won even one quality challenger so far.

[AnnaK_4ever]

Takao Suzuki won 14 challenger titles and 22 ATP main draw matches but never reached the Top-100.
What I find remarkable though is that 17 of 22 match wins came at the same tournament -- Tokyo Japan Open.

[Henry Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Li Ching Yuen

True.

Like I've been saying all along. Take a tip from the American Sports Leagues. Completely separate the tour and the Challenger level. Just basically make a cutoff at the end of the year of 100 players that will play ONLY tour level tourneys. They get decent money from participating in the 1st rounds of Masters and slams anyway, doubles etc... plus there's the 250's which are a decent source too. Too help tighten the calendar just compress some of the tournaments and have like 2-3 minor 250s taking place every week so that everybody can play and have realistic chances of getting match wins.

And after 6 months or so, make that cutoff again based on the rankings. Whoever performed the worst drops to the challenger level. Whoever won the most points in challengers advances at tour level.

It's super simple and it will make things that much interesting.

The current rankings are flawed imo.

that's an awful idea.

current system is mostly fine although can be a bit weighted in favour of challengers.

I think there should be more points for wins in qualies. It pains me to see guys who have the balls to try and qualify for bigger events end up with nothing while the guys who never bother can pick up easy points in challengers.

I have done zero analysis on this but qualie draws seem to be getting weaker and weaker and it's not surprising with the way points are weighted.