Mens Tennis Forums banner

Which ranking system do you prefer?

  • New system

    Votes: 7 35.0%
  • New system, but it should be modified

    Votes: 8 40.0%
  • Old system

    Votes: 5 25.0%

  • Total voters
    20
1 - 20 of 49 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,296 Posts
Discussion Starter #1 (Edited)
Brief explanations...

Old system: ranking points based on the actual points on the tour. HEAVILY favours finishing in the top few positions. Players who finish top 3, 4 in big tournaments get a very large amount of points, relatively speaking. The problem is that these ranking points will virtually always be totally disproportionate to the scoring points, which doesn't seem fair when you look at the ranking points for players that may have very similar draws. For example the draw of a player who finishes 5th might not be much better than that of the player who finished 10th to justify the former getting double the amount of ranking points. (See below: 5th place 7715 pts & 10th place 7655 pts, yet ranking points would be 630 vs 315). A single R1 pick could equate to a difference of hundreds of ranking points.

New system: ranking points calculated according to linear equation generated by regression (using 1st and last players' scores). Ranking points players get are thus directly proportional to their scores, and therefore differences in ranking points directly correlate to differences in scores (e.g. one correct R1 pick = 45 scoring pts = 22 ranking pts, uniformly) - imo a much more accurate reflection of performance. As a consequence though a lot of players are now getting seemingly large amounts of points esp. compared to the old system - this can be modified if needed (2nd poll option).

AusOpen '15 ranking points - old system vs new:


 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,496 Posts
I didn´t play under the old rules. But looking at the chart i kind of like they way things are.
If one was lukcy to win a Slam, he would have a tremendous advantage. Now he doesn´t.

I say leave it as it is this year. After World Tour Finals if some think a change is required , then lets go ahead.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,273 Posts
I didn´t play under the old rules. But looking at the chart i kind of like they way things are.
If one was lukcy to win a Slam, he would have a tremendous advantage. Now he doesn´t.
That's exactly the problem. The 2nd place could have had just one correct prediction less in R1 compared to the winner and he would get practically 1000 ranking points less. Is that fair? No.

Even if the points seem inflated in the new system, this won't matter, because it would be the case in all tournaments. The differences in ranking points will be smaller, but harder to make up for them in time. The only problem I see is that people who play regularly will be rewarded compared to the ones who will forget to play some tournaments. But here is also debatable: i guess you desrve this advantage if you are a regular player.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,273 Posts
I think if you do well in a major or masters that it should be rewarded, if you do well in a regular week it should not be so important, it's easier to do well in a regular week because you have 2-3 chances to do so, it does not mean you are good at FITD, it just means you got lucky on one of your draws.
That's why those are 1000 and 2000 points tournaments :p And from ATP250/500, just 10 are counted so everyone has enough chances to improve those results.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,273 Posts
Yes, but the new system makes the big events less important and the smaller ones more important.
How is that?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,273 Posts
WHat do you mean how, it's because you get less points at least for big events, and maybe more for smaller.
How come? Look at those results for AO. Just the 82nd place takes 500 points. You may argue that there are too many points awarded for GS/1000, but not the other way around :lol:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
24,789 Posts
How come? Look at those results for AO. Just the 82nd place takes 500 points. You may argue that there are too many points awarded for GS/1000, but not the other way around :lol:
No man, I'm talking about the new system that VRN and Lenders brought in without anyone really knowing about it or having a say, in order to properly vote on this we need to know exactly what it is they brought in.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,296 Posts
Discussion Starter #11 (Edited)
Yes, but the new system makes the big events less important and the smaller ones more important.
The big events are actually much more important under the new system. It's basically not possible to get a good ranking unless you play all the big events and do quite well in most of them. If you look at the top 5-6, all of them performed well in most of the slams and masters. They wouldn't be ranked at the top if this wasn't the case.

If you don't do well in the big events your ranking will reflect that. Take my own ranking, one of the main reasons I'm at #8 is because the top 7 all scored more points from RG & Wimbledon, that's why they are all 1500-2000 pts ahead of me; it's not because I didn't do as well in 250s & 500s, that probably only made a difference of a 200-300 pts.

Another example: at this year's AO, I got both of the important semifinalist picks wrong (Wawrinka and Berdych); if I had picked both of them correctly I would have approx. 400 more ranking pts. This is a significant amount of points yet it is fair, because they were important picks at a slam, and it demonstrates the importance of doing well at the big tournaments.

Or if I look at your ranking, you got 600 pts from this year's AO. Let's say you got 1200 pts instead (finish in the top 40 instead of 72nd), your ranking would be #12 instead of #14. That's an additional 600 pts you can't get anywhere else during the year, and it's a lot harder to get another 600 pts from 250s & 500s, if you won 4 500s right now you'd only get around 650 more pts :lol:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,496 Posts
In the old system if you missed a Grandslam you were out of the race to London right?
Now you can miss 1 and still be in the hunt.
Alot of players get high scores, true. But they deserved it. The diference is minimal from level to level.

Old system had huge drops in thos levels.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,626 Posts
Thanks for the great work and both polls, Synesthetic.

"New system, but it should be modified" is my choice.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,626 Posts
Now with this kind of system you can always pick just the conservative way and you know you will earn as much points as most of the other players. That's strange. Players gain too much points (in general) and to be good in rankings you have to play EACH bigger tournament and never risk too much.
The fixed amount of "0 points" or "1 point" should not be the last player in a tournament but - let's say - the player who is ranked 2/3 below the players - so with 100 players it would be fixed for rank 66/67th to have 0/1 point.
With 50 players playing, it should be rank 33/34th who will have 0/1 point.


That's a statistical thing to avoid statistical dispersion/variation.
There is always one or more players who play extremely bad and therefore the 2nd last player already has 50 or 200 points which is absurd


For Australian Open 2015 (92 players) it would have been rank 62th (Zumzzet) with 0 points and 2000 points for the winner.
The players between rank 1 and 62th will get points in the same system as now, but of course not the same amount. It will be adjusted.

Because we don't know how many players will play a tournament it should be fixed with fractions like 2/3 or so.
And from then on we should go the same system and chart and increase to the top as now.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,129 Posts
Between old and new? New.

New or New modified? I like new, but cant compare without modified data.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
24,789 Posts
There are the main points that were brought in I'm talking about:

-> The actual ranking system overrates a lot a player that won a tournament and puts them ahead of the players that won maybe 1-2 more less tournaments but that got a better result in most of the tournaments during the year.
-> As Lenders mentioned before, the ranking system is biased towards Grand Slam champions. Lenders was spot on: "The difference between 1st and 14th in a Slam might be 1 correct prediction but 1775 points, which takes basically two Masters title to make up for.".
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,296 Posts
Discussion Starter #17
^ I don't think he was trying to say that big tournaments should be less important. What he meant was that the winner of a tournament, especially slams, got way too many ranking points relative to everyone else, under the old system.

In fact, as I said in the previous post, the new system makes the big tournaments MUCH more important, simply because everyone besides the winner is getting a lot more ranking points. Thus it becomes important to do well in slams and masters, because these amounts of points aren't available in 250s and 500s.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,296 Posts
Discussion Starter #18
Anyway, I guess the early poll results show that most people favour the new system, but of these a significant proportion would like it to be modified, so it's definitely something to consider.

Maybe the other thread can be used to discuss changes to the new system. I will post my suggestions regarding this in that thread.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,626 Posts
When you have a look at the points for Monte Carlo who can easily see that the new system in this version is rather strange.
It is - to me - very strange to can win more than 500 ranking points without even having a finalist correct.
So let's modify the new ranking system in one of the ways Synesthetic (or I) suggested.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,626 Posts
Why should someone without any finalist correct in Monte Carlo win more points than the winner of Barcelona?
 
1 - 20 of 49 Posts
Top