[streetbond]

Up until 2009 it was 1000 points grand slams masters 500 points so grand slams brought 4000 points total, whereas masters 4500.Now slams 8000 points masters 9000 points . In tennis grand slams are what is most important furthermore you should win 7 matches in 5 sets in masters 5 matches in 3 sets. I think that grand slams should bring 3000 points.

 

[Johnny Groove]

Not a bad idea at all. 2500 at least

I'd also like to see more points (and money) for Davis Cup, especially the latter rounds, and WAY more points for the Olympics.

If we are going to take these weeks at #1 statistic so seriously, let's make the ranking system correct

 

[Loosie]

Up until 2009 it was 1000 points grand slams masters 500 points so grand slams brought 4000 points total, whereas masters 4500.Now slams 8000 points masters 9000 points . In tennis grand slams are what is most important furthermore you should win 7 matches in 5 sets in masters 5 matches in 3 sets. I think that grand slams should bring 3000 points.

In both cases you win more points by winning all of the Masters than the GS, it's just that because both were double the difference has also doubled.

This also means if you win all the Master and you get the full 9000 points for masters, then you won more than double the amount of GS, and you are getting barely more points then if you won all the GS.

The points are fine the way they are.

 

[Brit Tennis Fan]

Double of the amount of points compared to next level of tournaments is quite sufficient.

 

[norwood_10]

Yes. 2000 isn't enough. 3000 would be better.

 

[G.100sic]

Up until 2009 it was 1000 points grand slams masters 500 points so grand slams brought 4000 points total, whereas masters 4500.Now slams 8000 points masters 9000 points . In tennis grand slams are what is most important furthermore you should win 7 matches in 5 sets in masters 5 matches in 3 sets. I think that grand slams should bring 3000 points.

4 GS x 7 matches x 3 sets = 84 sets to win
7 MS x 5 matches x 2 sets +
2 MS x 6 matches x 2 sets = 94 sets to win
There you have it.
95.24 vs 95.74 points per set won.

 

[Victorious PIG]

It's fine the way it is. We already have fluke slam winners hanging around the Top 10 for a year.

 

[RedHotRafa49]

Yes. At least 3000. or at least decrease the value of MMs from 1000 to something less.

 

[BodyServe]

No if anything, it should be less points and more to the 1000 which are more dense and more difficult tournaments.

 

[TooBadFed]

No.

As said, fluking one tournament would leave you in the top spots for far too long

Cilic is getting blown out left and right

 

[Tiebreak100]

Not a bad idea at all. 2500 at least

I'd also like to see more points for Davis Cup, especially the latter rounds, and WAY more points for the Olympics.

If we are going to take these weeks at #1 statistic so seriously, let's make the ranking system correct

Agreed.

 

[norwood_10]

It's fine the way it is. We already have fluke slam winners hanging around the Top 10 for a year.

Wawrinka and Cilic are the only two unexpected GS winner in 11 years. I mean come on.

 

[Tiebreak100]

No if anything, it should be less points and more to the 1000 which are more dense and more difficult tournaments.

Shit trollin.

 

[norwood_10]

TBF I can understand why Murray fans would back this, after Wimbledon '13 holding 2 slams, the Olympic points and an MS title for me that's better than what Djokovic held at the time (1 slam, 3 MS and 1 WTF) all ends-up and proved to me that Slams are under-valued in terms of their points.

 

[Sidespinfan]

It's ok as it is. Masters (except MC) are mandatory just as Slams, so a bigger gap than double for Slams wouldn't make sense.

 

[HumbleTennisFan]

Wawrinka and Cilic are the only two unexpected GS winner in 11 years. I mean come on.

The thing is that Murray was shit on clay and skipped RG. You just can't be world no. 1 sucking 3 months of the entire season. Never.

 

[doubletrollt]

Up until 2009 it was 1000 points grand slams masters 500 points so grand slams brought 4000 points total, whereas masters 4500.Now slams 8000 points masters 9000 points . In tennis grand slams are what is most important furthermore you should win 7 matches in 5 sets in masters 5 matches in 3 sets. I think that grand slams should bring 3000 points.

First two rounds at slams are usually a joke for top players whereas at masters it is usually not the case at all, because of higher ranked players and bo3 format.

There are also demanding week by week masters like IW-Miami Madrid-Rome Canada-Cinci.

 

[BauerAlmeida]

It's alright. The difference between slams and M1000 (1000) is bigger than from M1000 to ATP250 (750). Making it more would make the rest of the events almost pointless.

 

[Yolita]

It's fine the way it is. We already have fluke slam winners hanging around the Top-10 for a year.

Precisely. A lucky draw could make you top 10 for a year. making draws unbalanced...and you want it even more lopsided? No, thank you.

They tinkered with the points in 2009...it was not straight doubling.

Before, a GS title was worth 1000 pts, it now is 2000 pts.
Before a GS final was 700 pts, it was decrewsed to 1200 pts
Before a GS semifinal was worth 450 pts. it was decreased to 720 pts.

So in a sense they increased the value of actually winning a slam as opposed to getting close. Also: Davis Cup didn't use to get any points...It now does. Good adjustments, I think.

 

[doubletrollt]

Wawrinka and Cilic are the only two unexpected GS winner in 11 years. I mean come on.

With Wawrinka winning one masters and Delpo&Cilic none.