The rankings question

[roysid]

I cannot not understand some of the logic in rankings.

For eg.

Federer: Why his MonteCarlo masters points are not considered, whereas he has 0 points from Tokyo(not played).

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Tennis/Players/Top-Players/Roger-Federer.aspx?t=rb


Nadal: His MonteCarlo points are considered but his Tokyo points (300) are non-countable.
http://www.atpworldtour.com/Tennis/Players/Top-Players/Rafael-Nadal.aspx?t=rb

 

[Raz11]

Because top 30 players have to play at least 4 ATP 500s (or Monte Carlo and Davis cup) a year. If not they are awarded a zero pointer for a whole entire year where they cannot replace it.

For Federer last year around Tokyo, he had only played Dubai and MC so he has to play at least 2 more ATP 500 before the end of the year. But since Basel was the last ATP 500 (And he wasn't playing Tokyo so he couldn't possibly fulfill the 4 ATP 500s requirement) he was awarded a zero pointer. Thus he will be stuck with the zero pointer until this year's Tokyo is over. MC isn't counted because he can only count his best 3 ATP 500 's results towards his ranking.

Similarly for Nadal, he has a zero pointer and can only add his 3 best points from his ATP 500's results and his Monte Carlo. In this case it is his win at Monte carlo (1000), Barcelona (500) and Davis cup (320).

 

[roysid]

Because top 30 players have to play at least 4 ATP 500s (or Monte Carlo and Davis cup) a year. If not they are awarded a zero pointer for a whole entire year where they cannot replace it.

For Federer last year around Tokyo, he had only played Dubai and MC so he has to play at least 2 more ATP 500 before the end of the year. But since Basel was the last ATP 500 (And he wasn't playing Tokyo so he couldn't possibly fulfill the 4 ATP 500s requirement) he was awarded a zero pointer. Thus he will be stuck with the zero pointer until this year's Tokyo is over. MC isn't counted because he can only count his best 3 ATP 500 's results towards his ranking.

Similarly for Nadal, he has a zero pointer and can only add his 3 best points from his ATP 500's results and his Monte Carlo. In this case it is his win at Monte carlo (1000), Barcelona (500) and Davis cup (320).

Thanks. I am trying to make sense of the rules. As I see it, there's a big loop hole with regards to Monte Carlo masters and 500s.

So last year when Fed didn't play Tokyo, Monte Carlo became one ATP-500 tournament for him. Points for Dubai, MC , Basel and Tokyo(zero pointer penalty) counted.

But now since he played Rotterdam, suddenly he has played 4 ATP-500s (as per the commitment) and MonteCarlo has to move out. Where it moves, instead of Masters 1000 it's a non-countable. What a joke?

With Nadal, the same logic doesn't apply. He got a zero pointer from Valencia (as penalty) and Tokyo points non-countable. Then why Monte Carlo points for him don't come under ATP-500? This way he escapes the penalty.

The most confusing explanation of rules:
http://www.atpworldtour.com/Rankings/Rankings-FAQ.aspx

 

[joeri888]

Thanks. I am trying to make sense of the rules. As I see it, there's a big loop hole with regards to Monte Carlo masters and 500s.

So last year when Fed didn't play Tokyo, Monte Carlo became one ATP-500 tournament for him. Points for Dubai, MC , Basel and Tokyo(zero pointer penalty) counted.

But now since he played Rotterdam, suddenly he has played 4 ATP-500s (as per the commitment) and MonteCarlo has to move out. Where it moves, instead of Masters 1000 it's a non-countable. What a joke?

With Nadal, the same logic doesn't apply. He got a zero pointer from Valencia (as penalty) and Tokyo points non-countable. Then why Monte Carlo points for him don't come under ATP-500? This way he escapes the penalty.

The most confusing explanation of rules:
http://www.atpworldtour.com/Rankings/Rankings-FAQ.aspx

MC always counts as a 500 I think. It doesn't have to move, but it's his lowest ATP 500. Because he has only 180 points, while he has 300 from Dubai, and 500 from both Rotterdam and Basel.

 

[Warmaster]

I still think the whole idea of zero pointers is silly. Why do players need to play at least 4 500's?? It makes sense forcing them to play the majors and the 1000's (who wouldn't play them anyway) but penalizing them for not playing enough smaller tournaments is unfair imo. This is particularly harsh for the top 4 who always make deep runs in every tournament they enter.

Especially because apparantly the zero pointer counts for a whole year.
Applying this to Federer atm, he has 4 500's (well 3 + MC) but is still stuck with a zero pointer and thus only gets points for 3 of the 4.

Ah well, it doesn't matter that much, but still, it seems unnecessary to me

 

[Tennis_Hands]

I still think the whole idea of zero pointers is silly. Why do players need to play at least 4 500's?? It makes sense forcing them to play the majors and the 1000's (who wouldn't play them anyway) but penalizing them for not playing enough smaller tournaments is unfair imo. This is particularly harsh for the top 4 who always make deep runs in every tournament they enter.

Especially because apparantly the zero pointer counts for a whole year.
Applying this to Federer atm, he has 4 500's (well 3 + MC) but is still stuck with a zero pointer and thus only gets points for 3 of the 4.

Ah well, it doesn't matter that much, but still, it seems unnecessary to me

It is not unneccessary. Mandatory tournaments are mandatory. They were made mandatory for a good reason. The players make enough money from them as well. It is not in any way harsh on the top 4 since their ranking is accumulated in all those events. They have to play by the rules that give them the points and money they receive. They can skip tournaments and they receive penalties (ALL of them). It is not like they have to part with any of their bodyparts for skipping, is it? Those are just points.

 

[niff]

It's best not to try and understand them.

 

[MG1]

So last year when Fed didn't play Tokyo, Monte Carlo became one ATP-500 tournament for him. Points for Dubai, MC , Basel and Tokyo(zero pointer penalty) counted.

But now since he played Rotterdam, suddenly he has played 4 ATP-500s (as per the commitment) and MonteCarlo has to move out. Where it moves, instead of Masters 1000 it's a non-countable. What a joke?

royalsid..

After Tokyo last year a zero point penalty applied to him that will be with him till this year tokyo tournament. IF now if ATP remove the zero point penalty after rotterdam then what would be the purpose of penalty ???

Think carefully ...its completely with in their rule..!!

Zero point penalty applied when players don't play necessary no. tournaments and don't count their earned points for some particular period of time.

e.g. If roger point MC point would not drop this week will anyone call it a penalty in that case the moment roger played 4 tournaments his points accumulated in the ranking ..whats the penalty ??

 

[Warmaster]

It is not unneccessary. Mandatory tournaments are mandatory. They were made mandatory for a good reason. The players make enough money from them as well. It is not in any way harsh on the top 4 since their ranking is accumulated in all those events. They have to play by the rules that give them the points and money they receive. They can skip tournaments and they receive penalties (ALL of them). It is not like they have to part with any of their bodyparts for skipping, is it? Those are just points.

Exactly, if they all receive penalties, that means no one is able to follow the rule in the first place. That looks like a bad rule to me.


Also, if for example Federer had shown up in Tokyo but tanked in the first round, he would now have 180 points extra...if this is correct (can someone verify this?), it shows why the system is flawed.

 

[MG1]

Ranking rules are well documented though they confuse you sometime.

 

[MG1]

Exactly, if they all receive penalties, that means no one is able to follow the rule in the first place. That looks like a bad rule to me.


Also, if for example Federer had shown up in Tokyo but tanked in the first round, he would now have 180 points extra...if this is correct (can someone verify this?), it shows why the system is flawed.

That also means Fed had to visit tokyo...follow promotional events ..meet with fans ..do some press conferences...thats a big thing for tournament owners..isn't it ??

thats why they apply these rule to top 30.

 

[Warmaster]

That also means Fed had to visit tokyo...follow promotional events ..meet with fans ..do some press conferences...thats a big thing for tournament owners..isn't it ??

thats why they apply these rule to top 30.

Be that as it may, if you can earn significantly more points for tanking in the first round, the system is far from perfect.

 

[Achilles82]

Because top 30 players have to play at least 4 ATP 500s (or Monte Carlo and Davis cup) a year. If not they are awarded a zero pointer for a whole entire year where they cannot replace it.

For Federer last year around Tokyo, he had only played Dubai and MC so he has to play at least 2 more ATP 500 before the end of the year. But since Basel was the last ATP 500 (And he wasn't playing Tokyo so he couldn't possibly fulfill the 4 ATP 500s requirement) he was awarded a zero pointer. Thus he will be stuck with the zero pointer until this year's Tokyo is over. MC isn't counted because he can only count his best 3 ATP 500 's results towards his ranking.

Similarly for Nadal, he has a zero pointer and can only add his 3 best points from his ATP 500's results and his Monte Carlo. In this case it is his win at Monte carlo (1000), Barcelona (500) and Davis cup (320).

Davis cup is included as 500 event, but if a player doesn't play at least four 500 tournaments (monte carlo included), a player will get stuck with 0 points, and davis cup points won't count. Actually will count if result is better then rest three 500 events.

 

[MG1]

Be that as it may, if you can earn significantly more points for tanking in the first round, the system is far from perfect.

That why there is no significant point for tanking in the first round ..not ven in slam. that why there is no such big loophole in ranking.

 

[shbh]

MC always counts as a 500 I think. It doesn't have to move, but it's his lowest ATP 500. Because he has only 180 points, while he has 300 from Dubai, and 500 from both Rotterdam and Basel.

Exactly. Only the best 4 ATP 500 results count. As noted above MC is a 1000 event but is counted towards the 4 500 category. That's why in Federer's case the 180 points from MC are replaced by the 500 points from Rotterdam.

However this year rules were changed yet again. From 2012 the best 6 ATP 500/250/challengers/futures/DC, etc will count instead of the best 4 ATP 500 and the best 2 ATP 250 results like it was until the end of 2011. There will probably be some kind of a transition to the new rules which will and is already creating a big mess...

 

[Achilles82]

I still think the whole idea of zero pointers is silly. Why do players need to play at least 4 500's?? It makes sense forcing them to play the majors and the 1000's (who wouldn't play them anyway) but penalizing them for not playing enough smaller tournaments is unfair imo. This is particularly harsh for the top 4 who always make deep runs in every tournament they enter.

Especially because apparantly the zero pointer counts for a whole year.
Applying this to Federer atm, he has 4 500's (well 3 + MC) but is still stuck with a zero pointer and thus only gets points for 3 of the 4.

Ah well, it doesn't matter that much, but still, it seems unnecessary to me

There are bigger penalties for not playing masters 1000 tournaments.

 

[MG1]

Exactly. Only the best 4 ATP 500 results count. As noted above MC is a 1000 event but is counted towards the 4 500 category. That's why in Federer's case the 180 points from MC are replaced by the 500 points from Rotterdam.

However this year rules were changed yet again. From 2012 the best 6 ATP 500/250/challengers/futures/DC, etc will count instead of the best 4 ATP 500 and the best 2 ATP 250 results like it was until the end of 2011. There will probably be some kind of a transition to the new rules which will and is already creating a big mess...

But if a player have zero penalty for not playing 4 ATP 500 tournament then your ATP 500(equivalent) rslt will not count further in ranking like federer MC point dropped but doha is with him though Monte carlo point is more than Doha as per 6 best rslt

 

[Warmaster]

That why there is no significant point for tanking in the first round ..not ven in slam. that why there is no such big loophole in ranking.

I'm not 100% sure on how the rankings work but consider this scenario and feel free to correct me if I'm wrong:

Scenario 1)

Player A wins MC + 2 500's and gets a zero pointer for not playing a fourth tournament = 2000 points

Now early next year, this player wins a different 500 tournament, but these points are not added because of the zero pointer = stuck on 2000 points

Scenario 2)

Player A wins MC + 2 500's and tanks in the first round of another 500 tournament = still about 2000 points

Now early next year, this player wins a different 500 tournament, but now these 500 points are directly counted towards his point total
= 2500 points


And as such player A can have 500 extra points for a while by tanking in the first round instead of not playing at all.

 

[shbh]

But if a player have zero penalty for not playing 4 ATP 500 tournament then your ATP 500(equivalent) rslt will not count further in ranking like federer MC point dropped but doha is with him though Monte carlo point is more than Doha as per 6 best rslt

I know. It seems that the ATP will enforce this best of 6 rule gradually but in the new rulebook they don't say how exactly so all we can do is wait and see. Besides this year also the calendar has been changed due to the Olympics and that's why drop off dates differ from last year which will lead even to a bigger mess. Rankings will be tough to understand in the next couple of months.

 

[MG1]

I'm not 100% sure on how the rankings work but consider this scenario and feel free to correct me if I'm wrong:

Scenario 1)

Player A wins MC + 2 500's and gets a zero pointer for not playing a fourth tournament = 2000 points

Now early next year, this player wins a different 500 tournament, but these points are not added because of the zero pointer = stuck on 2000 points

Scenario 2)

Player A wins MC + 2 500's and tanks in the first round of another 500 tournament = still about 2000 points

Now early next year, this player wins a different 500 tournament, but now these 500 points are directly counted towards his point total
= 2500 points


And as such player A can have 500 extra points for a while by tanking in the first round instead of not playing at all.

In scenario 2 player wins another tournament and get 500 point plus he had to visit the tournament site and stay there (doing his promotional activities/press) to tank his first round match so he reap the benefits.

In scenario 1 player doesn't visit tournament site ..did nothing for that tournament promotion and get ZERO penalty that will be with him for sometime in next year but in that case also point will be added after penalty will be removed....Zero point penalty does NOT effect your year end ranking points.

So i think its fair.

 

[Warmaster]

In scenario 2 player wins another tournament and get 500 point plus he had to visit the tournament site and stay there (doing his promotional activities/press) to tank his first round match so he reap the benefits.

In scenario 1 player doesn't visit tournament site ..did nothing for that tournament promotion and get ZERO penalty that will be with him for sometime in next year but in that case also point will be added after penalty will be removed....Zero point penalty does NOT effect your year end ranking points.

So i think its fair.

Indeed, hence why I said 'for a while'

But still, I stand by my point, I think this is a flaw in the system although it is unlikely to have a big impact.

 

[MG1]

Indeed, hence why I said 'for a while'

But still, I stand by my point, I think this is a flaw in the system although it is unlikely to have a big impact.

yaa..no big impact ..no top player visit a tournament to tank his 1st round match ...not even murray

though it happened by him unintentionally in last year Rotterdam

 

[merlinpinpin]

I'm actually all in favour of this penalty rule (and mandatory tournaments), otherwise smaller tournaments would suffer and the tennis world needs them. However, why wouldn't they play this card to the hilt? They should count all the tournaments the players enter during the year (ie penalty if under the 4 mandatory ATP 500 events, count all the points if players play a lot of ATP 500's and 250's). Tournaments and fans would only benefit from this, and the points earned would not make that big a difference, considering how much less these tournaments are worth than slams and M1000's. It might be enough to gain maybe a couple of spots for the players willing to play enough (and fit enough to do so), and I think that would be a good thing.

(Having faster surfaces for shorter matches could also be a way to entice players in this case, of course, so it would be a win-win situation.)

 

[joeri888]

I'm actually all in favour of this penalty rule (and mandatory tournaments), otherwise smaller tournaments would suffer and the tennis world needs them. However, why wouldn't they play this card to the hilt? They should count all the tournaments the players enter during the year (ie penalty if under the 4 mandatory ATP 500 events, count all the points if players play a lot of ATP 500's and 250's). Tournaments and fans would only benefit from this, and the points earned would not make that big a difference, considering how much less these tournaments are worth than slams and M1000's. It might be enough to gain maybe a couple of spots for the players willing to play enough (and fit enough to do so), and I think that would be a good thing.

(Having faster surfaces for shorter matches could also be a way to entice players in this case, of course, so it would be a win-win situation.)

I think they fear the Wozniacki effect. 1 player winning the four slams, another winning 17 500 events

 

[Emet74]

Honestly I don't get why the rule about 4 500-level events has to exist.

Top players will always have incentive to play non-mandatory tournaments due to appearance fees, and it seems they ignore this "rule" anyway, so what's the point of it. If they got rid of it, would there be any significant changes in the schedules of top players? Doubt it.

 

[merlinpinpin]

I think they fear the Wozniacki effect. 1 player winning the four slams, another winning 17 500 events

Well, there *aren't* 17 ATP 500's in the calendar.

Thing is, if it's mandatory to play 4, who cares if some choose to play 5 or 6? It would be good for the sport to have stars playing in more "minor" tournaments, too, instead of just bundling them all together for slams and M1000's.