Advantages of tier-based rankings instead of point-based rankings, especially at the Challenger/Futures level

[AlecG]

So first I'll explain how tier-based rankings would work.

Each result belongs to a tier. First, you rank players by their number of A-tier results. Next, where their number of A-tier results is equal, you then rank them by their number of B-tier results, and so on through all the tiers.

One possible set of tiers could be:

A tier: GS win
B tier: GS final or M1000 win
C tier: GS semi, M1000 final or 500 win
D tier: GS QF, M1000 semi, 500 final or 250 win
E tier: M1000 QF, 500 semi, 250 final, Challenger A win (& equivalent results at GS)
F tier: 500 QF, 250 semi, Challenger A final, Challenger B win (& equivalent results at GS & M1000)
and so on right down to
M tier: R16 at an M15 futures
and so on if you want to assign tiers right down to winning matches at Futures qualifying.

(Edit: Alternatively

A tier: GS win
B tier: M1000 win
C tier: 500 win
D tier: GS final
E tier: M1000 final
F fier: GS semi
G tier: M1000 semi, GS QF
F tier 250 win, 500 final
etc)

Obviously this system is imperfect too, but there would be a number of advantages especially at the Challenger/Futures level.

When it comes to accuracy, it could go either way, but generally speaking I think most would agree that someone who has won more high level tournaments in the past 12 months deserves to be ranked higher than someone who has accumulated more points just by playing more tournaments.

This advantage may only be a small advantage at the ATP tour Top 100 level, but it's a huge advantage when it comes to fairness at the Challengers/Futures level.

Under the current system, someone who can only afford to play two tournaments in a year, and wins both, will end up with less points & a lower ranking than someone who can afford to travel the world playing as many tournaments as possible, even if the latter player never makes it to the semis at any of those tournaments, as long the latter player reaches enough R16 & QF.

Not only is this unfair on the players who can't afford to do the latter, but it's unfair on the players who *can* (just barely) afford to do the latter. They have to travel the world on very little money and play as many tournaments as possible just to compete, spending time away from friends & family, risking injury & permanent burn-out, turning down more lucrative or healthier opportunities to be hitting partners or coaches or other better paying jobs, all while flying huge total distances per year.

While the tier system doesn't completely solve this, is does greatly reduce the problem, since you can't get ahead of someone who has won several tournaments just by winning four QF or eight R16 for each tournament that they won, and while it certainly has potential disadvantages, the disadvantages that I can think of seem tiny compared to the advantages.

What do you all think?

I don't know if this would be an improvement overall at the ATP tour level, so maybe a points system is fine there, but at the Challenger level the current points system seems terrible and this seems like a big improvement.

A compromise between the two systems would be to have each round in tournament be worth 3-4x more than the previous round rather than less than twice as much. At the moment, winning a slam is 2000 points while getting to a final is 1200 points. Clearly a player who gets to the finals twice and loses is generally not as good as a player who wins, so it would make more sense for it to be 2000 points for the winner and say 500-800 points for the other finalist. However, at the Challenger level, I think going all the way to a tier system is probably better.

 

[timnz]

So first I'll explain how tier-based rankings would work.

Each result belongs to a tier. First, you rank players by their number of A-tier results. Next, where their number of A-tier results is equal, you then rank them by their number of B-tier results, and so on through all the tiers.

A tier: GS win
B tier: GS final or M1000 win
C tier: GS semi, M1000 final or 500 win
D tier: GS QF, M1000 semi, 500 final or 250 win
E tier: M1000 QF, 500 semi, 250 final, Challenger A win (& equivalent results at GS)
F tier: 500 QF, 250 semi, Challenger A final, Challenger B win (& equivalent results at GS & M1000)
and so on right down to
M tier: R16 at an M15 futures
and so on if you want to assign tiers right down to winning matches at Futures qualifying.

Obviously this system is imperfect too, but there would be a number of advantages especially at the Challenger/Futures level.

When it comes to accuracy, it could go either way, but generally speaking I think most would agree that someone who has won more high level tournaments in the past 12 months deserves to be ranked higher than someone who has accumulated more points just by playing more tournaments.

This advantage may only be a small advantage at the ATP tour Top 100 level, but it's a huge advantage when it comes to fairness at the Challengers/Futures level.

Under the current system, someone who can only afford to play two tournaments in a year, and wins both, will end up with less points & a lower ranking than someone who can afford to travel the world playing as many tournaments as possible, even if the latter player never makes it to the semis at any of those tournaments, as long the latter player reaches enough R16 & QF.

Not only is this unfair on the players who can't afford to do the latter, but it's unfair on the players who *can* (just barely) afford to do the latter. They have to travel the world on very little money and play as many tournaments as possible just to compete, spending time away from friends & family, risking injury & permanent burn-out, turning down more lucrative or healthier opportunities to be hitting partners or coaches or other better paying jobs, all while flying huge total distances per year.

While the tier system doesn't completely solve this, is does greatly reduce the problem, and while it certainly has potential disadvantages, the disadvantages that I can think of seem tiny compared to the advantages.

What do you all think?

"
" generally speaking I think most would agree that someone who has won more high level tournaments in the past 12 months deserves to be ranked higher than someone who has accumulated more points just by playing more tournaments."

But your system eg tier B, does include non-tournament wins. But what if they didn't win the tournament but went far in the important tournaments. Like Rudd, making the finals of two grand slams plus the final of the WTF?

 

[AlecG]

"
" generally speaking I think most would agree that someone who has won more high level tournaments in the past 12 months deserves to be ranked higher than someone who has accumulated more points just by playing more tournaments."

But your system eg tier B, does include non-tournament wins. But what if they didn't win the tournament but went far in the important tournaments. Like Rudd, making the finals of two grand slams plus the final of the WTF?

Ruud would still be top 5 (currently) under the tiers I suggested, but he would be ranked lower than he is now as Nadal would move up to number 3

Also, the exact tiers are only suggestions.

As I said, it's still not a perfect system, but if you regard Ruud being at no. 3 as unfair (or previously being at number two as unfair), the tier system would be an improvement even with the tiers I suggested.

If you think making a Grand Slam final is not as good as winning a M1000, I think that's a resonable opinion, so it could be made C-tier instead of B-tier.

A tier: GS win
B tier: M1000 win
C tier: 500 win
D tier: GS final
E tier: M1000 final
F fier: GS semi
G tier: M1000 semi, GS QF
F tier 250 win, 500 final,
etc

I think it's debatable which of these is fairer, but as I said, both would be better than the current system if the goal is not to put a double finalist ahead of someone who actually won a slam like Nadal.

 

[AceyMan]

This is *already how it works* by how the points are distributed (doubling at each level of a tournament).

Or is this some n00bs April Fool's joke ...?

<head_desk>

 

[AlecG]

This is *already how it works* by how the points are distributed (doubling at each level of a tournament).

Or is this some n00bs April Fool's joke ...?

<dead_desk>

XD no it isn't. To choose just the most obvious example, Nadal would be no. 3 in the world right now under this tier system because he won the French Open. Instead he's not even in the top 10.

And it's even more obvious at the Challenger level where people can't always afford to play all year & need the option to play less tournaments & spend more time earning money in other ways, which would be obvious if you read and understood my post.

Under the current system, if you make play fourteen Challengers and make only the QF each time, you get a higher ranking than someone who plays two at the same level and wins both. This would not be the case under a tier system.

 

[Larry Duff]

I cannot ever see how the slams get the same recognition points wise. Wimbledon and the US Open are worth so much more.

 

[AlecG]

I cannot ever see how the slams get the same recognition points wise. Wimbledon and the US Open are worth so much more.

Prize money is basically the same.
Points are the same.
Prestige is similar.
Number of rounds in the same.
Depth of field is very similar as a result of the above facts.

Plus history/tradition, which contributes to the prestige.

Are you from the USA by chance? US Open is only worth more than French Open if you're from the US or have other ties to the US imo and that seems like a typical US-centric view tbh.

 

[timnz]

Ruud would still be top 5 (currently) under the tiers I suggested, but he would be ranked lower than he is now as Nadal would move up to number 3

Also, the exact tiers are only suggestions.

As I said, it's still not a perfect system, but if you regard Ruud being at no. 3 as unfair (or previously being at number two as unfair), the tier system would be an improvement even with the tiers I suggested.

If you think making a Grand Slam final is not as good as winning a M1000, I think that's a resonable opinion, so it could be made C-tier instead of B-tier.

A tier: GS win
B tier: M1000 win
C tier: 500 win or GS final
D tier: GS semi, M1000 final
E tier: 250 win, 500 final, M1000 semi, GS QF
etc

I think it's debatable which of these is fairer, but as I said, both would be better than the current system if the goal is not to put a double finalist ahead of someone who actually won a slam like Nadal.

Essentially aren’t you effectively giving out points? You are ascribing a value to each tier

 

[AlecG]

Essentially aren’t you effectively giving out points? You are ascribing a value to each tier

You can think of it that way if you like but I'm not sure how that that's going to you to understand the differences and why they're important.

Under a tier system, no amount of Grand Slam finals can add up to a Grand Slam, and no amount of R16 at a Challenger can add up to a Challenger final win, whereas in a point system they can.

 

[Beacon Hill]

XD no it isn't. To choose just the most obvious example, Nadal would be no. 3 in the world right now under this tier system because he won the French Open. Instead he's not even in the top 10.

And it's even more obvious at the Challenger level where people can't always afford to play all year & need the option to play less tournaments & spend more time earning money in other ways, which would be obvious if you read and understood my post.

Under the current system, if you make play fourteen Challengers and make only the QF each time, you get a higher ranking than someone who plays two at the same level and wins both. This would not be the case under a tier system.

Who would be a player that wins 2 Challengers out of 2 played, but can't afford to play any other ones? If you can win every Challenger you play, you are in the top 100 and can make a living.

 

[timnz]

You can think of it that way if you like but I'm not sure how that that's going to you to understand the differences and why they're important.

Under a tier system, no amount of Grand Slam finals can add up to a Grand Slam, and no amount of R16 at a Challenger can add up to a Challenger final win, whereas in a point system they can.

So let’s play it out without the use of points

Player A and player B

Player A has only entered one tournament - a slam that they won (they got in by qualifying)
Player B has been a finalist in 11 slams (imagine if Federer or Djokovic had all of their slam runner-ups before winning any) won 30 masters 1000’s and also has 10 semis in slams

Who has the superior career?

 

[Max G.]

If a player gets a wildcard into a Grand Slam, their 1R opponent gets injured or retires, does that mean they instantly are top 100 for a year, leapfrogging all the players fighting in challengers? Winning one match counts more than a whole year of play?

 

[Max G.]

...actually, that might be a pointless question, because I think there's a very fundamental reason that this approach doesn't work. The ranking system is the ATP's incentive structure - it's how they set what they want their players' seasons to be like. And this tiered approach takes that away, so it's a non-starter.

Look at the way the points work for the top players. You take best 19 tournaments, but you MUST include all Grand Slams and Masters you're eligible for (or you get a zero), then the top players additionally must include two ATP500 events including one after the US Open (or get zeros), and they must include 19 total (or get zero points for the missing ones). The ATP also uses the threat of zero-points to enforce other rules - I think if someone withdraws for an invalid reason at the last moment they get a zero, and so on. This works because every tournament counts and every tournament matters - everything adds to your points. This is how they make it so that the clay-court specialists play on grass or the hard-court specialists play on clay (even if they believe they don't have a shot of doing anywhere near as well as they do on their preferred surface, winning SOME points is a lot better than getting those zeros!).

The ATP has absolutely no reason to WANT players to be able to maintain a top-100 ranking just by playing 4-5 tournaments a year and doing well at them. They WANT their players to play a full schedule and travel around the world! That's how they get players to travel to far-off countries to play tournaments there! The fundamental thing you designed your tiered ranking system to accomplish - allow someone to get a good ranking just by having a few good tournaments - is undesirable to the people who actually control the ranking system.

 

[AlecG]

Who would be a player that wins 2 Challengers out of 2 played, but can't afford to play any other ones? If you can win every Challenger you play, you are in the top 100 and can make a living.

OK fair point. That may have been a bad example. I was getting a bit mixed up between Challengers and Futures. To be clear, you'd have to win twelve Challenger 50 or five Challenger 125 to get into the top 100. Also, to be clear, you could have someone who can play at a very high level, like top 50 level, but can only play at that level for a couple of tournaments per year due to injuries & pain. I still think they should have a better ranking than someone who can't play at that level but takes more painkillers or whatever & plays more tournaments.

But perhaps Futures would make my point clearer.

Let's say you can only afford to play one Future and you win. However, a large part of your prize money goes towards paying your costs & you have a full time job and can't take the gamble of quitting your job in the hope that you'll win enough tournaments to support yourself & your family or whatever. Why should that person have less points than someone who can afford to play more than 15 times in a year & never makes it past the QFs?

 

[AlecG]

So let’s play it out without the use of points

Player A and player B

Player A has only entered one tournament - a slam that they won (they got in by qualifying)
Player B has been a finalist in 11 slams (imagine if Federer or Djokovic had all of their slam runner-ups before winning any) won 30 masters 1000’s and also has 10 semis in slams

Who has the superior career?

This is a 12-month ranking system like the current system, so results from more than 12 months ago would not count.

We can use an example that's similar though.

Let's say Ruud played only Slams and got to the final of every slam in the last 12 months but lost every time. Nadal played only RG won. Djokovic played only Wimbledon & Aus Open won both. Alcaraz played only US Open & Madrid won both.

Under the current point system, the ranking of those four would be

Ruud
Novak
Alcaraz
Nadal

and some of them might not even make it to the top 10 due to not playing many tournaments.

Under my tier system, the ranking would be

Novak
Alcaraz
Nadal
Ruud

and only Ruud could be lower depending on how others did in M1000.

So I'd say even under this example that is similar to the one you chose, my system still seems fairer?

 

[AlecG]

If a player gets a wildcard into a Grand Slam, their 1R opponent gets injured or retires, does that mean they instantly are top 100 for a year, leapfrogging all the players fighting in challengers? Winning one match counts more than a whole year of play?

I wouldn't design the tiers that way, no.

Firstly, I wouldn't necessarily count something as a win if the other player retires (but the previous round win would still count).

Secondly, the first few rounds of a major would be considered very low tier, (and especially the first round), so even if they get a win, they could be below someone playing Challengers, as long as the best result of the person playing Challengers is at a higher tier than that round of that major.

But if you've been playing Futures all year & still haven't got a better result than winning the first two rounds of a major, then of course you should be ranked lower.

 

[AlecG]

...actually, that might be a pointless question, because I think there's a very fundamental reason that this approach doesn't work. The ranking system is the ATP's incentive structure - it's how they set what they want their players' seasons to be like. And this tiered approach takes that away, so it's a non-starter.

Look at the way the points work for the top players. You take best 19 tournaments, but you MUST include all Grand Slams and Masters you're eligible for (or you get a zero), then the top players additionally must include two ATP500 events including one after the US Open (or get zeros), and they must include 19 total (or get zero points for the missing ones). The ATP also uses the threat of zero-points to enforce other rules - I think if someone withdraws for an invalid reason at the last moment they get a zero, and so on. This works because every tournament counts and every tournament matters - everything adds to your points. This is how they make it so that the clay-court specialists play on grass or the hard-court specialists play on clay (even if they believe they don't have a shot of doing anywhere near as well as they do on their preferred surface, winning SOME points is a lot better than getting those zeros!).

The ATP has absolutely no reason to WANT players to be able to maintain a top-100 ranking just by playing 4-5 tournaments a year and doing well at them. They WANT their players to play a full schedule and travel around the world! That's how they get players to travel to far-off countries to play tournaments there! The fundamental thing you designed your tiered ranking system to accomplish - allow someone to get a good ranking just by having a few good tournaments - is undesirable to the people who actually control the ranking system.

It doesn't take that away completely & in some ways it helps. Currently the Masters 1000 are "compulsory" but players can just claim to have an injury (which they all do) and get out of it so making it "compulsory" doesn't work. My system would heavily incentivise playing in these events that the ATP *really* wants them playing in.

Competition for Grand Slams would be even fiercer.

Competition for M1000s would be fiercer because there's an extremely high chance that you'll end up with the same number of slams as someone else. Most players will have zero Slams & desperate to get an M1000. A player with one slam will want to be ahead of anyone else in the previous 12 months or next 12 months with one slam on M1000 count. A player with 3 slams might rest on their laurels until the next Slam (which they can already do by claiming injury as Slams are worth a lot more in points), but then they risk going 2-2 for someone else and having less Masters 1000.

For the same reason, the tier system also heavily incentivises playing in a 500 instead of a 250, etc. And players still have big incentives to play 250s. Firstly, it determines their ranking compared to others with the same number of results at each higher tier, and secondly they are paid well.

& they all like to get match practice when they're not injured anyway.

I accept the system has flaws though, of course. Maybe you're right and the ATP won't go for it for the reason you stated, but this doesn't explain why they'd use a point system even at the Futures level where nobody comes to watch anyway.

 

[Beacon Hill]

OK fair point. That may have been a bad example. I was getting a bit mixed up between Challengers and Futures. To be clear, you'd have to win twelve Challenger 50 or five Challenger 125 to get into the top 100. Also, to be clear, you could have someone who can play at a very high level, like top 50 level, but can only play at that level for a couple of tournaments per year due to injuries & pain. I still think they should have a better ranking than someone who can't play at that level but takes more painkillers or whatever & plays more tournaments.

But perhaps Futures would make my point clearer.

Let's say you can only afford to play one Future and you win. However, a large part of your prize money goes towards paying your costs & you have a full time job and can't take the gamble of quitting your job in the hope that you'll win enough tournaments to support yourself & your family or whatever. Why should that person have less points than someone who can afford to play more than 15 times in a year & never makes it past the QFs?

Your example of Futures is better. There are thousands of players in the world who could be ranked inside the top 1000 if they could afford to travel around the world and play a full year of Futures tournaments. All ranking systems have flaws. Are you likely a better player if you make four major quarterfinals, losing close matches to the eventual winner, or if you get a great draw in one of them and make the final, but lose in the first or second round in the other three?

 

[Max G.]

This is a 12-month ranking system like the current system, so results from more than 12 months ago would not count.

We can use an example that's similar though.

Let's say Ruud played only Slams and got to the final of every slam in the last 12 months but lost every time. Nadal played only RG won. Djokovic played only Wimbledon & Aus Open won both. Alcaraz played only US Open & Madrid won both.

Under the current point system, the ranking of those four would be

Ruud
Novak
Alcaraz
Nadal

and some of them might not even make it to the top 10 due to not playing many tournaments.

Under my tier system, the ranking would be

Novak
Alcaraz
Nadal
Ruud

and only Ruud could be lower depending on how others did in M1000.

So I'd say even under this example that is similar to the one you chose, my system still seems fairer?

Excellent example, because this exactly what the ATP doesn't want - the ATP (and fans, TBH!) want players to play a full schedule, so they absolutely do NOT want people who choose not to play a full schedule to be able to use half the year to overtake those who did!

 

[TripleATeam]

It doesn't take that away completely & in some ways it helps. Currently the Masters 1000 are "compulsory" but players can just claim to have an injury (which they all do) and get out of it so making it "compulsory" doesn't work. My system would heavily incentivise playing in these events that the ATP *really* wants them playing in.

Competition for Grand Slams would be even fiercer.

Competition for M1000s would be fiercer because there's an extremely high chance that you'll end up with the same number of slams as someone else. Most players will have zero Slams & desperate to get an M1000. A player with one slam will want to be ahead of anyone else in the previous 12 months or next 12 months with one slam on M1000 count. A player with 3 slams might rest on their laurels until the next Slam (which they can already do by claiming injury as Slams are worth a lot more in points), but then they risk going 2-2 for someone else and having less Masters 1000.

For the same reason, the tier system also heavily incentivises playing in a 500 instead of a 250, etc. And players still have big incentives to play 250s. Firstly, it determines their ranking compared to others with the same number of results at each higher tier, and secondly they are paid well.

& they all like to get match practice when they're not injured anyway.

I accept the system has flaws though, of course. Maybe you're right and the ATP won't go for it for the reason you stated, but this doesn't explain why they'd use a point system even at the Futures level where nobody comes to watch anyway.

We don't need fiercer competition for Slams.

This system results naturally in a few consequences:

1. Winning any slam guarantees you're at least #4 in the world for a year, so fluking a slam victory results in an entire year of messed up rankings.
   1. In 2004, Gaudio got 1000 of his 1920 points from RG. He ended the year within the top 10, but just #10. This is because the rest of his year sucked. Under this hypothetical system, Gaudio would've been guaranteed #2 seed for the entire year from RG 2004-RG 2005. Absolutely insane given as Roddick, Hewitt, Safin, and several other players were clearly better in 2004. The fluked slam and dominance of Federer would've completely upended the rankings for months.
2. Consistent players get completely thrashed by this. It far and away favors the players that can get hot for a tournament then fade quickly. This is not a sustainable model for a sports tour and should not be favored.
   1. In 2014, Federer did not win a slam. He was a few points away from doing so, but did not. That small difference would take him from #2 under the current system to #5 in this system, when clearly he was an overall better player that year than Cilic or Wawrinka.
3. This system also provides perverse incentives to the ATP and to competition as a whole. The tour is better when almost, if not all, of the best players play the marquee events.
   1. A player that wins the AO has next to no incentive to compete in any M1000s or lower events other than for warm ups. They are guaranteed at worst a #4 seeding to any event for the rest of the year. If they win RG as well, they have a top-2 seeding and 9/10 times they're #1. No reason to exhaust themselves competing. They'll play these events like warmups and the competitions will suffer for it.
   2. Players that have no chance at slams have no reason to attend them. At the moment, the (relatively) copious points and cash on the line for a GS R3 will draw all the top 200 players to compete in qualifying and the main draw even if they know a win is a long shot. Say there's a Challenger 125 at the same time as a GS. Now the #98 in the world has no reason to play the slam if they know their (best case) R3 result will give them no advantage but a 125 win in a depleted field will give them a huge boost.
4. It perpetuates the idea that the only events that truly matter in the sport are slams. If the Top 4 can only shuffle around a bit outside of slams, and for the other 40+ weeks of the year the field are competing for a "best of the rest" competition, that gets stale. It not only devalues every single other event, it lowers the revenue they generate by lowering their stakes.
   1. People are hyped when the #1 position is on the line in a M1000 competition (see Miami and Alcaraz or 2016's ATP Finals between Murray and Djokovic). It adds tension to matches and makes them exciting.

This system you propose is designed to fix seemingly one very specific "issue" with the current system. A player can make up a point deficit with lower-ranked tournaments. This system is specifically designed to avoid a 2016-esque debacle from ever occurring again. I counter to say that is not a problem of the system but a feature. When others can make up point deficits by playing more, it incentivizes both the pursuer and pursued to play tournaments and accrue points. Djokovic had 2 slam wins and 1 finals, but Murray made 3 slam finals while only winning 1. You can't say Murray was far behind in impressiveness. He just lost 1 more of his finals. He made up that loss (a bit) by winning the ATP Finals against him. Not to mention trailing Djokovic at M1000s by a hair. By all metrics, these two would've been neck and neck. In the end, I would say that winning 3 500s shows more determination for the #1 position than the man resting on his laurels. Perhaps 1 slam final + 3 500s isn't greater than a slam win in terms of career, but it certainly should be in determining the world #1. One is winning 7 matches of A-tier competition, the other is winning 6 matches of A-tier competition and 15 matches of B-tier competition.

 

[AlecG]

Your example of Futures is better. There are thousands of players in the world who could be ranked inside the top 1000 if they could afford to travel around the world and play a full year of Futures tournaments. All ranking systems have flaws. Are you likely a better player if you make four major quarterfinals, losing close matches to the eventual winner, or if you get a great draw in one of them and make the final, but lose in the first or second round in the other three?

That's a good point. I think the UTR system (which is also broken in many ways) would probably be easier to fix, but improving UTR *and* getting the ITF to use it might be harder, not sure. I think either a tier system or an improved points system might be more realistic in the meantime, but I'm not sure. Maybe we should just skip straight to fixing the UTR system & then use that, at least at the ITF level.

 

[AlecG]

Excellent example, because this exactly what the ATP doesn't want - the ATP (and fans, TBH!) want players to play a full schedule, so they absolutely do NOT want people who choose not to play a full schedule to be able to use half the year to overtake those who did!

Eh. That seems pretty short-sighted. If players weren't incentivised to play so many tournaments per year, Roger probably still be playing Wimbledon & Rafa probably would have performed better at AO this year. I don't think that necessarily helps the ATP at all in the long run, may even hurt them. Certainly not good for most spectators and those dealing with the injuries.

 

[AlecG]

We don't need fiercer competition for Slams.

This system results naturally in a few consequences:

1. Winning any slam guarantees you're at least #4 in the world for a year, so fluking a slam victory results in an entire year of messed up rankings.
   1. In 2004, Gaudio got 1000 of his 1920 points from RG. He ended the year within the top 10, but just #10. This is because the rest of his year sucked. Under this hypothetical system, Gaudio would've been guaranteed #2 seed for the entire year from RG 2004-RG 2005. Absolutely insane given as Roddick, Hewitt, Safin, and several other players were clearly better in 2004. The fluked slam and dominance of Federer would've completely upended the rankings for months.
2. Consistent players get completely thrashed by this. It far and away favors the players that can get hot for a tournament then fade quickly. This is not a sustainable model for a sports tour and should not be favored.
   1. In 2014, Federer did not win a slam. He was a few points away from doing so, but did not. That small difference would take him from #2 under the current system to #5 in this system, when clearly he was an overall better player that year than Cilic or Wawrinka.
3. This system also provides perverse incentives to the ATP and to competition as a whole. The tour is better when almost, if not all, of the best players play the marquee events.
   1. A player that wins the AO has next to no incentive to compete in any M1000s or lower events other than for warm ups. They are guaranteed at worst a #4 seeding to any event for the rest of the year. If they win RG as well, they have a top-2 seeding and 9/10 times they're #1. No reason to exhaust themselves competing. They'll play these events like warmups and the competitions will suffer for it.
   2. Players that have no chance at slams have no reason to attend them. At the moment, the (relatively) copious points and cash on the line for a GS R3 will draw all the top 200 players to compete in qualifying and the main draw even if they know a win is a long shot. Say there's a Challenger 125 at the same time as a GS. Now the #98 in the world has no reason to play the slam if they know their (best case) R3 result will give them no advantage but a 125 win in a depleted field will give them a huge boost.
4. It perpetuates the idea that the only events that truly matter in the sport are slams. If the Top 4 can only shuffle around a bit outside of slams, and for the other 40+ weeks of the year the field are competing for a "best of the rest" competition, that gets stale. It not only devalues every single other event, it lowers the revenue they generate by lowering their stakes.
   1. People are hyped when the #1 position is on the line in a M1000 competition (see Miami and Alcaraz or 2016's ATP Finals between Murray and Djokovic). It adds tension to matches and makes them exciting.

This system you propose is designed to fix seemingly one very specific "issue" with the current system. A player can make up a point deficit with lower-ranked tournaments. This system is specifically designed to avoid a 2016-esque debacle from ever occurring again. I counter to say that is not a problem of the system but a feature. When others can make up point deficits by playing more, it incentivizes both the pursuer and pursued to play tournaments and accrue points. Djokovic had 2 slam wins and 1 finals, but Murray made 3 slam finals while only winning 1. You can't say Murray was far behind in impressiveness. He just lost 1 more of his finals. He made up that loss (a bit) by winning the ATP Finals against him. Not to mention trailing Djokovic at M1000s by a hair. By all metrics, these two would've been neck and neck. In the end, I would say that winning 3 500s shows more determination for the #1 position than the man resting on his laurels. Perhaps 1 slam final + 3 500s isn't greater than a slam win in terms of career, but it certainly should be in determining the world #1. One is winning 7 matches of A-tier competition, the other is winning 6 matches of A-tier competition and 15 matches of B-tier competition.

Some of these points are good. Some are incorrect.

1. Why would Gaudio have been #2 seed rather than #4? & is it that much worse than Ruud being rnaked at number 2 & ahead of Rafa under the current system?
2. Re: Federer 2014, that's a good point, but (a) I think you could find similar examples under the current system, like Rafa being ranked outside the top 10 despite winning a French Open, that are just as bad.
3.1. This:

That seems pretty short-sighted. If players weren't incentivised to play so many tournaments per year, Roger probably still be playing Wimbledon & Rafa probably would have performed better at AO this year. I don't think that necessarily helps the ATP at all in the long run, may even hurt them. Certainly not good for most spectators and those dealing with the injuries.

3.2. This point is just incorrect. You've missed the part in the tier system where a given round in a Slam would be equal to a higher round in a lower event. For example, getting to the final of a Slam could belong to the same tier as winning an M1000 or winning a 500 or a separate tier in between the two. Getting to R3 of a Slam might be equal to getting to the final of a lower level tournament, etc.

4. "People are hyped when the #1 position is on the line in a M1000 competition." Would still happen between players with equal number of Slams, which often happens even for a world no. 1.

Your last paragraph also misses the point that I've made a few times that this is actually a bigger issue at the Futures level, so even if it's better to keep the points system at the ATO tour Top 100 level, a tier system could still be an improvement (still not ideal) at the Futures or even Challenger levels.

 

[TripleATeam]

Some of these points are good. Some are incorrect.

1. Why would Gaudio have been #2 seed rather than #4? & is it that much worse than Ruud being rnaked at number 2 & ahead of Rafa under the current system?

Federer held 3 slams. Gaudio had the other 1. He'd be ranked #2 as "slam wins" is the Tier 1 determinant and no amount of Tier 2 tournaments can equate to a single Tier 1. And it is signficantly worse than Ruud being ranked #2. Ruud made 2 slam finals, the finals of the ATP finals, 3 M1000 SFs (1 F), and multiple 250 wins. In Gaudio's entire career he never made 2 slam finals, the finals of the ATP finals, or a Masters final. He made a total of 3 Masters SFs in his career (none of them in 2004), and didn't win a single tournament other than RG that entire year.

Quite literally, Gaudio's 2004 resume was:
1 RG W, 0 wins at the YEC, best Masters result was a R3, and won no other tournaments the entire year.

Compared to Ruud's:
0 Slam wins, 2 slam finals. YEC final. 1 M1000 F, 2 extra SFs, plus 3 extra tournament wins.

This is a world of difference. Ruud being #2 was weak but at least somewhat understandable. If there was ever a system that could rank 2004 Gaudio as #2, it would be broken.

As for Rafa, it's a good thing he's not top 10. Not that he isn't among the 10 best players in the world - but rankings should be based on results, not level of play. The fact that Rafa isn't top 10 right now isn't an injustice of the system - he's played a total of 8 tournaments in the last 12 months. He's made the QF just two times. Yes, one of those tournaments is a slam, but why should the fact that he's won RG put him above Ruud - someone that had better results at every single level of the ATP tournament hierarchy except Slams? And even there Ruud made 2 slam finals and Rafa won a slam.

And even if it were fair, what about if Ruud had won RG instead? Then Rafa just has 1 RG final and practically nothing else, would it be fair to place him above a player that made multiple slam SFs and Masters finals? Neither player would have won anything that year, but it's clear to anyone that 1 slam final < 4 slam SFs + 3 M1000 Fs.

3.2. This point is just incorrect. You've missed the part in the tier system where a given round in a Slam would be equal to a higher round in a lower event. For example, getting to the final of a Slam could belong to the same tier as winning an M1000 or winning a 500 or a separate tier in between the two. Getting to R3 of a Slam might be equal to getting to the final of a lower level tournament, etc.

Despite this quote not being mine, I'll assume you meant to quote my part on it:

1. Players that have no chance at slams have no reason to attend them. At the moment, the (relatively) copious points and cash on the line for a GS R3 will draw all the top 200 players to compete in qualifying and the main draw even if they know a win is a long shot. Say there's a Challenger 125 at the same time as a GS. Now the #98 in the world has no reason to play the slam if they know their (best case) R3 result will give them no advantage but a 125 win in a depleted field will give them a huge boost.

It might serve a similar purpose, sure. Say everything else remains as it is (mandatory GS attendance, etc), then sure. It's similar. But then you have a system where a single GS SF matters more than any number of ATP250 wins, which should not be the case.

4. "People are hyped when the #1 position is on the line in a M1000 competition." Would still happen between players with equal number of Slams, which often happens even for a world no. 1.

Your last paragraph also misses the point that I've made a few times that this is actually a bigger issue at the Futures level, so even if it's better to keep the points system at the ATO tour Top 100 level, a tier system could still be an improvement (still not ideal) at the Futures or even Challenger levels.

An equal number of slams? That does happen, but it's not often competitive between the two at equal slam counts.

In the last 10 years, we had the following:
Between USO19 and USO20, there was Nadal and Djokovic at 2 each. Honestly, fairly close.
Before that was USO17-WIM18. Nadal clearly ahead.
AO17-WIM17: Clearly Murray the entire time.
and USO14-AO15. Obviously Djokovic.

The only period with even somewhat of a question as to the #1 if it were only between players with even slam counts in the last 10 years would've been 1 year: USO19-USO20. All other times it would've been clear. Not what I'd call exciting.

As for Futures, I don't find it a compelling reason to rewrite an entire rankings system.