[GlennMirnyi]

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.

Berlocq is pretty good for clay ATPs.

[GlennMirnyi]

Originally Posted by 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.

Fast hard court, sometimes indoor.

Takao was a monster there.

[Li Ching Yuen]

Originally Posted by Henry Chinaski

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.

It's an excellent idea because it makes the ranking spots between challenger level and tour level the most red hot in the whole ATP.

Qualies are bullshit in the first place.

[Li Ching Yuen]

Originally Posted by 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.

It's the guy that I was actually trying to refer to instead of Soeda.

Compared to the ATP there are way more indoor courts in the Challengers.

[fast_clay]

Originally Posted by Henry Chinaski

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.

indeed... the women's tour actually does offer that, one facet of that tour that i always had me wondereding why the atp didnt copy - seeing as though you want to encourage higher quality fields at your showpiece events...

when they changed the points weighting, i dont think there was much research into what the changes would do... it seemed more like: ok, we're having a facelift, the gold and silver colours are nice, not sure how it'll affect the rankings tho... dusn matter, cos it looks ace

[jmjhb]

Kamke is a classic case of an AAAA player. Great at Challengers last year, dire on the ATP circuit this year.

[Action Jackson]

Problem with the challengers is they increased the points over the time, but haven't increased the prizemoney relatively.

[Filo V.]

Originally Posted by GlennMirnyi

Berlocq is pretty good for clay ATPs.

He can make R2s at ATP clay events, and an occasional big run, but he's 22-41 in his career at the ATP level on clay. He's also never spent back to back seasons in the top 100.

[Filo V.]

Originally Posted by Action Jackson

Problem with the challengers is they increased the points over the time, but haven't increased the prizemoney relatively.

True.

[Filo V.]

Originally Posted by Henry Chinaski

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.

In principle agree with this. At the same time, it would take away from challenger fields especially during certain weeks, so there has to be a balance.

[Action Jackson]

With that problem, this means players will stick around longer in the challengers.

[Nathaliia]

our Przysiężny struggles to win MD matches on ATP level yet he's really decent in challengers, usually the small ones but not only

[Henry Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Li Ching Yuen

It's an excellent idea because it makes the ranking spots between challenger level and tour level the most red hot in the whole ATP.

Qualies are bullshit in the first place.

nah seriously, it's reallt bad. you'd just end up with atp draws full of absolute cannon fodder.

I'd rather have Pere Riba off playing a clay court challenger somewhere than being forced to take a spot in a fast indoor tournament instead of a decent fast court player outside the top 100 like, say, Gilles Muller.

No idea what "qualies are bullshit" is even supposed to mean.

[tennisfan856]

Maximo Gonzalez tears up clay challengers, passes through atp qualies, and then loses in the 1r most of the time. He isn't good enough for ATP's apparently.

Bjorn Phau was also a challenger king (now losing that too) but he's had only glimpses here and there of success in atp main draws.

[Action Jackson]

If you're good enough then you will make the transition. As for Dimitrov too soon to write him off.