[Roxitova]

I guess I will find out soon enough if points are being deducted from players for tournaments that are cancelled, i.e. IW.
It strikes me as unfair, since players have no opportunity to defend the points.
But if the points remained on their ranking till the tournament is played next time--a year from now, that would also inflate rankings, perhaps unfairly.

Anyone know the official policy on this?

 

[Mr.Black]

The points will obviously still drop.
Rankings are a 52-week system, no matter the tournament happens or not.

If it happened for a prolonged period of time (months), they might freeze it, since the rankings would make any point if the players aren't playing – they'd all have zero points after a year.

 

[Henrik]

I guess one can argue that it is a bit unfair that one doesn't get the chance to defend points. On the other hand, players that lost early last year (for example, guys like Tsitsipas, Medvedev, and Djokovic) won't gain new points either, and they would have had their chances to fight for the top spots this year, same as the rest.

There are really no alternatives but to deduct the points. Imagine Federer keeping 600 points despite not being ready to play. I don't think even his most vocal fans would suggest something like that.

 

[TheLastJedi]

One sensible way is to redistribute the total 9000 Masters points to the remaining 8 Masters, point-drop as usual.

Plus penalty to IW, e.g., removing its mandatory status, or a temporary downgrade.

 

[Jolyon]

The points will obviously still drop.
Rankings are a 52-week system, no matter the tournament happens or not.

If it happened for a prolonged period of time (months), they might freeze it, since the rankings would make any point if the players aren't playing – they'd all have zero points after a year.

They can change the rules via a meeting or resolution though, under emergency or extra-ordinary circumstances, and get back to following regular rules when things get back to normal.

The ATP race is the sum of all points earned via tournaments during an ATP calendar year, anyway. If tournaments are not played, then the player earns no points for those tournaments.

 

[Roxitova]

I see the points, of course, did come off.
Seems to me they could have some other plan in cases like this.

 

[hammett]

Downgrade the s*it of IW to 250 for this . Im not having my tennis cause'o few old fellows in the US. J/k

 

[Lucas_4ever]

Tsitsipas will gain 80 points when his next best optional result replaces IW. Paire will gain some points (35) too.

 

[yellow grass]

For the last time, points deduction is not a thing. This pervasive notion (even here in MTF, a place for tennis fans) is the root for these kinds of misunderstandings.

This is a 52-week system, as @Mr.Black pointed out.

 

[Loosie]

Points are still going to drop.

I see the points, of course, did come off.
Seems to me they could have some other plan in cases like this.

Why? When they moved dates of tournaments the old ones still dropped off 52-weeks later.

 

[Roxitova]

Points are still going to drop.



Why? When they moved dates of tournaments the old ones still dropped off 52-weeks later.

I don't quite follow your last sentence.
It just seems to me unfair that points drop if players have no chance to defend them.
On the other hand, it's not fair if they stay on for a full year till the tourn is played again.
There ought to be some middle ground between these two outcomes, I think.

 

[yellow grass]

I don't quite follow your last sentence.
It just seems to me unfair that points drop if players have no chance to defend them.
On the other hand, it's not fair if they stay on for a full year till the tourn is played again.
There ought to be some middle ground between these two outcomes, I think.

As my other post said, points deduction is not a thing. It is a 52-week system. Why is this hard to understand

 

[Mr.Black]

Let's put it this way, since it is a 52-week system, if only 2 tournaments were played during the entire 52-week (a year) period, only results from those would make the official ranking.

Weird, but you can't argue it's not fair. They all had the exact same chance to accumulate as many points possible during those 52 weeks. Be it 40 tournaments or 2.

 

[Loosie]

I don't quite follow your last sentence.
It just seems to me unfair that points drop if players have no chance to defend them.
On the other hand, it's not fair if they stay on for a full year till the tourn is played again.
There ought to be some middle ground between these two outcomes, I think.

How is this different from players unable to play due to injury, they also have no chance to defend them. The points still expire. It's a 52-week rolling point system. The 52 weeks are up so they are no longer counted.

 

[YellowBullet]

I guess I will find out soon enough if points are being deducted from players for tournaments that are cancelled, i.e. IW.
It strikes me as unfair, since players have no opportunity to defend the points.
But if the points remained on their ranking till the tournament is played next time--a year from now, that would also inflate rankings, perhaps unfairly.

Nothing "unfair" about this. It's a 52 week system. All the players got a chance to play IW last year, and whatever points they got then lasted them for 52 weeks. Completely fair.

None of the players got a chance to play IW this year, so everybody got 0 points for IW. That's going to last 52 weeks. Completely fair.

No such thing as "defending" points. Your points from 52 weeks ago will get deleted, no matter what. You can't "defend" them. You can play in a tournament this year and earn points for the next 52 weeks, but that has absolutely nothing to do with what you did 52 weeks ago.