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
I get what your saying, but i respectfully disagree.
Had he played a few more tournaments and had a few top5 he would be in.
That new system while not perfect atleast you can miss a week but then come back.
I dont get the conservitive part. I played the same why i did last year, only diference is i didnt miss alot this year and by luck i got most times the tournament winner.
Its like Roddickfan in Suicide. He plays conservatly, do you think its a bad thing?
This year didnt do much good. So those who risked more got ahead oh him.
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.
But what happened this year was a bit discusting. We had a vote, he had a new point systm then its was changed midway back to old system. Thats never a good thing.
The oold system rewards luckys winners. While new system rewards conservative ( yes) but also realistic players.
Some of your draws early on were out of this world. Not sure you did that under protest or just didnt care.