Mens Tennis Forums banner

Ranking system?

TT 2012 - Ranking System?

2K views 23 replies 18 participants last post by  Daniel_amr 
#1 · (Edited)
This topic was raised during the last off-season. We agreed to discuss it in 2012 for a possible implementation in 2013, because of the dificulties of a possible transition to a different system and how deeply a change in the rankings would affect the game as a whole.

ATP & TT points breakdown:
http://i107.photobucket.com/albums/m303/keqtqiadv/TTRS_zps185da990.gif

There hasn't been much discussion on this topic, but we're opening a poll anyway. Which of the systems do you prefer, the ATP system or the current TT system? Please vote (TT players only).

The suggestion of giving points for wins in qualifying will be discussed/voted in the TT Changes thread.
 
#2 ·
I believe the major advantage of the TT rankings is that they give more weight to the challengers and lower ranked tournaments.
Two points in favour of this:-
1. A Challenger is no easier to predict - in fact it is probably harder.
2. Newcomers can probably rise through the ranks quicker.

I can understand players wanting the setup to mirror real tennis as closely as possible, but we are not all Nadals or Federers.
 
#7 ·
I'd only suggest that Futures wouldn't count as much as Challengers! It's not a matter of how difficult it can be to predict or not.. It's simply to have an "entry level" tournament where new comers could feel more at ease. Say something like:
W: 60
F: 42
S: 27
Q: 14
R16: 6
R32: 0
Q: 1
 
#9 ·
I think we should use the breakdown from the ATP. For me I don't think it would have a negative effect on newcomers or challengers players. I think that would make it easier not harder for new players to rise in the ranking especially when they are playing grand slams for example. In ATP it's uncommon that low ranked players would defeat seeded players in first rounds in slams, while in TT it's always possible as there are always equal chances to win any match.
If it happened I think a transition would be the whole next year I think using two parallel rankings, the normal one we currently using and creating a parallel one with a new ranking system which won't be used and then in the beginning of 2014 start using the new one.
Maybe a vote would help see what the majority really wants?!

Thanks
 
#10 ·
I think we should use the breakdown from the ATP. For me I don't think it would have a negative effect on newcomers or challengers players. I think that would make it easier not harder for new players to rise in the ranking especially when they are playing grand slams for example. In ATP it's uncommon that low ranked players would defeat seeded players in first rounds in slams, while in TT it's always possible as there are always equal chances to win any match.
If it happened I think a transition would be the whole next year I think using two parallel rankings, the normal one we currently using and creating a parallel one with a new ranking system which won't be used and then in the beginning of 2014 start using the new one.
Maybe a vote would help see what the majority really wants?!

Thanks
It depends what you mean by low ranked. Only a very few low ranked players even play in the first round of slams
 
#12 ·
I have a few opinions.

1. I am totally fine with adjusting certain things like rewarding more points per round (e.g. Finalists getting more than half the champions points in TT as opposed to exactly half as many in ATP). It basically gives points for winning matches instead of making 8 QF equal to 1 title.
I guess it rewards consistency??? Idk, but I like it.

2. What bugs me is the way that the points are scaled back. It doesn't make sense to me that a challenger title is worth a bit less than an ATP 250 final. The 250 field is much more competitive and although you could argue that the picks are more difficult, everybody is at the same advantage/disadvantage. It's all comparative. I understand that it is designed to help newcomers rise up faster, but it is almost too easy.

So I guess what I'm trying to say is:
Let's continue to adjust points per round to give more credit to finalists, semifinalists, etc.
But rescale the ATP events to match the current ATP ranking system (e.g. Slams = 2000 ; Masters = 1000)
It's fine if you want to make a GS final worth 1300 points, or a Masters SF worth 450 points or something. Just don't treat CH on the same level as ATP 250 events.
 
#13 ·
There hasn't been much discussion on this topic, but we're opening a poll anyway. Which of the systems do you prefer, the ATP system or the current TT system? Please vote (TT players only).

The suggestion of giving points for wins in qualifying will be discussed/voted in the TT Changes thread.
 
#14 ·
I think we should swich to ATP system. If someone is able to 'convert' rankings during off-season, it shouldn't be a problem.

Personally, I don't think we should give more points for challengers. I spent a lot of time building my rankings to play ATP tournaments regulary (it was 2 years I think) and it shouldn't be easier now.
 
#19 · (Edited)
So you want everyone on a more level playing field is that it, I get it, but on the other hand, I think if you are ranked in the top 50, you should not be playing CH's in TT, that's what I call unfair to the lower ranked players if you want to use the same logic you just said about the ranking points.
 
#21 ·
I am saying it here again, i think it would be nice to have the same breakdown as the atp. Than youreally feel like you play there. But i agree on the transition year. So this year maintain the ranking and meanwhile start up the new system. Otherwise it would be not fair.


Sent from my iPhone using Verticalsports.com Free App
 
#23 ·
TT is pretty random, especially in the late stages, so giving as many points to a single match win as in ATP isn't really great.

Example: in a GS Final - picking the winner of 3 IRL matches - using ATP system there will be a difference of 800 points between winner and loser. Which is the same as the difference between going 17-1 and 0-4 in a month of 250s. :eek:
 
#24 ·
The Atp system is quite unfair to early stages and I think difference between champion and Runner up is way too big. We may adjust some points definitely. It doesn't make much sense that a CH titlist gets almost the same points as runner up in ATP 250. Perhaps a 100 and 80 points for challenger instead than the ones 120 and 90 we have.
Anyhow, I don't agree changing to the ATP ranking system but we must make some adjustments
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top