I see your points, Fargif. But first: The winner of the AO who was not playing since April is ranked 24 and has no chance to be in the Tour Finals. So there is a balance in this system, at least a bit.This is the perfect example why this scoring system isnt fair. Nothing against player A B C D or E. Its about fairness.
While there isnt many points available you have to be very lucky to get somepoint.
Heres my problem. TRmooney won AO. And he deserved it. So did his 2000 points. Now look at the rest of the year. He hasnt played since Monte Carlo. Should he be in the final 16? With this point system yes. But what about those who have played all year and havent been lucky?
Vamos, Fickle, Jean, RHB, mijb Synesthetic. ETC...
With the other new system we had until MC these players would of have more time and more points to get within top16. And lucky players who win a major or master but then dont play for the rest of the year fall out.
As you can see im up there so it doesnt afffect me much. But i still remain with the same opinion as i did early on.
I get what your saying, but i respectfully disagree.I see your points, Fargif. But first: The winner of the AO who was not playing since April is ranked 24 and has no chance to be in the Tour Finals. So there is a balance in this system, at least a bit.
Second: I was not convinced by the new system because you had to play every week and you had to play always very conservative and you were safe to gain a lot of points, this can't be a game in here when just everyone fills out the seedings in every big tournament und has then enough points to be Top 20 (i exagerate it here a bit of course).
This old system is in my opinion better but it could also be a little bit flatter in my opinion like f.e. a Grand Slam 1=2000, 2=1600, 3=1300, 4=1150, 5=1050, 6=950 etc. und not as "hard" as it is at the moment.
Thanks a lot for your work bry17may
True. But you won RG.I'm 3 in the race and didn't play Wimbledon... :shrug:
It doesn't bother me that much. I don't like the old system a lot better. It should be a compromise between the old and the new system in my opinion.I get what your saying, but i respectfully disagree.
I dont see why it bothers you soo much. Give it a try? Just one year. If you and olther dont like it then lets go to a vote.
We wanna go through with this?One solution to this problem is that 1-16 will obviously play WTF and if ALTs get in they cannot qualify for the Year-End Challenger finals. This will be for 17-32 and ALTs beyond that.
This will give those who play every week and weren't lucky can make the CHALLENGER finals. It will definitely not be worth as many ranking points as the WTF because those who made it to that deserve it. But it will give the others, a chance to add some additional ranking points.
Perhaps the ranking point system will be cut in half for the Challenger Finals.
I'll manage it.