question about rankings

[Steve Dykstra]

I thought I knew exactly how the rankings worked, but apparently I don't. I thought they took off points for a tournament from the previous year and replaced them with the points from that tournament in the previous year the Monday after that tournament is completed. But it seems I am wrong as Federer's total points dropped on this Monday's rankings from last Monday's rankings even though he went to the finals in Rome rather than not playing last year. The only explanation I can think of is that they added his points for the final of Rome this year, but dropped the results for Hamburg last year. Is this how they do it? If it is, I don't think it makes much sense. Rankings should be based on the last 52 weeks, not the last 51.

[simi]

Don't know all the in's and out's, but it goes week-by-week. The Roma and Hamburg tournaments are in a different week this year than last year. The points dropped off one week, and then were added the next, (based on how a player did). The ************.com web site explains it in his weekly ratings recap that he posts on Monday mornings.

[simi]

partial quote from last week's newsletter

http://************.com/rankings/2006/s050806.htm

Originally Posted by ************.com

On the down side
The dreaded stagger made itself felt once again this week. Last year's Rome points fall off the rankings and the top players currently have one less mandatory event for the moment so some players gained points without striking a ball this week. For those players whose 19th best result was higher than what they earned in Rome last year, they got the gift of the difference this week. On the flip side those with lots of points to defend had no way of defending all of them. Such is the case for our Loser of the Week, Rafael Nadal. Nadal won Rome last year and now loses most of those points. But it came nowhere near endangering his status at #2.

and a partial quote from this week's newsletter

http://************.com/rankings/2006/s051506.htm

Originally Posted by ************.com

The points from Hamburg come off this week, which Nadal did not play in last year. As a result, he gains all 500 of his points and finally puts a bit of a dent in Federer's lead. Federer on the other hand was the champ in Hamburg last year so he loses a few points.

[Steve Dykstra]

Ok, I see how it works now, but I don't understand why they do it that way. It would make much more sense to drop points for Rome the previous year at the same time points are added for Rome this year. This way would be a better more consistent indicator of the past year of tournaments since the dates don't always line up perfectly from year to year. Is there any good reason that the ATP does not do it this way?

[simi]

Originally Posted by Steve Dykstra - (paraphrased)

Is there any good reason that the ATP does __ it this way?

Only valid reason I can think of is that some tournaments do not have longevity.

[Moose Malloy]

Is there any good reason that the ATP does not do it this way?

It would be too complicated, because other events are involved, not just Rome. The whole system would get out of wack. If you compare '05 & '06 schedule you will see what I mean.
Davis Cup is the main reason for these problems, its dates vary year to year, so some events have to move.

This quirk allowed Rafter to get to #1 in '99, without even playing an event. Sampras' points from a ms dropped off early beacuse of a DC shift, & Rafter just moved up to 1.

[illkhiboy]

If a player misses one of the mandatory events, does that mean that an extra Int'l Series events replaces the points for the missed tourny? If so, does that mean that players can miss Master Series events and play other tournies where they have a good chance of earning more points? Or is it only allowed when they are injured for a mandatory event?

[Max G.]

Originally Posted by illkhiboy

If a player misses one of the mandatory events, does that mean that an extra Int'l Series events replaces the points for the missed tourny? If so, does that mean that players can miss Master Series events and play other tournies where they have a good chance of earning more points? Or is it only allowed when they are injured for a mandatory event?

No. Any mandatory events that they are accepted into count towards their ranking, regardless of how they do in them; if they don't play, it counts as a zero. (I think this is true even if they miss it because of injury, because the mandatory events make acceptance lists based purely on the rankings and not on the status of the players. Not 100% sure on this though.)

[lucky leprechaun]

Awesome I was freaking clueless before this thread. So it's best of 4 grand slams/9 masters series/5 others in the past 52 weeks to determine this week's ranking? And you get to substitute more "others" if you suck too bad to get invited into a masters series or grand slam? Thanks guys! Wow, I need to poke my head out of the player bashing threads, I might learn something

[Hops]

Originally Posted by lucky leprechaun

Awesome I was freaking clueless before this thread. So it's best of 4 grand slams/9 masters series/5 others in the past 52 weeks to determine this week's ranking?

almost. stagger sometimes forces it to be 4 GS/8 MS/6 Oth, or 4 GS/10 MS/4 Oth. 5/8/06 Rankings, Rome 2005 dropped off, but no MS replaced it, so top ranked players had six optionals in their total.

[Hops]

Originally Posted by Moose Malloy

It would be too complicated, because other events are involved, not just Rome. The whole system would get out of wack. If you compare '05 & '06 schedule you will see what I mean.
Davis Cup is the main reason for these problems, its dates vary year to year, so some events have to move.

right, and tournaments go under, or move on the calendar, new ones start, etc. Casablanca, e.g., had recent finals dates:

4/13/03
5/23/04
4/10/05
4/30/06

concept of best results in past 52 weeks isn't too difficult to grasp. They've already simplified the system to absurd degree (no bonus points etc). Let's not make it worse.

Originally Posted by Moose Malloy

This quirk allowed Rafter to get to #1 in '99, without even playing an event. Sampras' points from a ms dropped off early beacuse of a DC shift, & Rafter just moved up to 1.

Agassi, and Washington DC tourney.

http://www.************.com/rankings/1999/s072699.htm

[Hops]

Originally Posted by Max G.

No. Any mandatory events that they are accepted into count towards their ranking, regardless of how they do in them; if they don't play, it counts as a zero. (I think this is true even if they miss it because of injury, because the mandatory events make acceptance lists based purely on the rankings and not on the status of the players. Not 100% sure on this though.)

yep, even if you're injured, you get the big zero if you're on the acceptance list. Federer and Nadal will have Hamburg zeros for an entire year, and they cannot replace it with any other tournament. An idiotic rule, but hey, it's the ATP.

[Steve Dykstra]

Well, this stagger effect is just another reason that the end of year #1 ranking is more prestigious than being #1 at another time.

[lucky leprechaun]

Originally Posted by Hops

almost. stagger sometimes forces it to be 4 GS/8 MS/6 Oth, or 4 GS/10 MS/4 Oth. 5/8/06 Rankings, Rome 2005 dropped off, but no MS replaced it, so top ranked players had six optionals in their total.

Thanks Mr. Mouse with a wooden tennis racquet