ATP point system help?!

[tommynguyen101]

Can someone please explain the ATP point system? It's pretty complicated

 

[Goosehead]

why don't you go on the atp tour website, it has all the info there,

there is a rankings question & answer part, and a ranking points breakdown for different tourneys.

 

[PCXL-Fan]

A player's ATP Ranking is based on the total points he accrued in the following 19 tournaments (18 if he did not qualify for the ATP World Tour Finals):
-The four Grand Slam tournaments
-The eight mandatory & 2 non-mandatory ATP World Tour Masters 1000 tournaments
-The previous ATP World Tour Finals count until the Monday following the final regular-season ATP event of the following year.
-The best six results from all ATP World Tour 500, ATP World Tour 250, ATP Challenger Tour, Futures Series, Olympics and Davis Cup tournaments played in the calendar year

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Rankings/Rankings-FAQ.aspx

 

[decrepitude]

-The eight mandatory & 2 non-mandatory ATP World Tour Masters 1000 tournaments

A fairly comprehensive answer of the basics, but surely there are eight mandatory Masters but only one (Monte Carlo) non-mandatory?

 

[Dark Magician]

I will try to be brief. Different tournaments have been assigned different points (the number of points vary as per the round till which a player has reached). The 4 G.Slams has equal weightage ie 2000 points (on victory). Masters1000 has 1000 points, WTF has upto 1500 points for the victor.
1 special feature of ranking system is the defending of points. Eg. Novak won AO 2013, so he should get +2000 pts, but since he won AO last year also, those points will have to be nullified this year (the next year). So Novak gained 0 pts overall post AO. This is because current points = the number of points collected in exactly past 1 year. Hence the year end ranking (in Dec.) will be = the rank earned based on performance in the past 1 year, which is basically the same year from January.
Hope this helps.

 

[cluckcluck]

Earned points will also have to be defended the next season.
For example: Djokovic won Montecarlo, he didn't get 1000 points for winning, he only got 400 points. This is because in 2012 he reached the final and won 600 points. He defended those 600 points by reaching the final.
Nadal on the other hand, lost 400 points because he didn't defend the 1000 from 2012 but he did reach the final and kept 600 of the 1000 from the year before.

 

[spinovic]

Take the maximum points of each tournament group -

Grand Slams - 2000
Masters 1000 - 1000
ATP 500 - 500
ATP 250 - 250

If you win the tournament, you get the max points. You get a percentage of the maximum for each tournament based on what round you make it to. Here's how that breaks down for each level.

Result - Percentage (Slam, 1000, 500, 250)

F - 60% (1200, 600, 300, 150)
SF - 36% (720, 360, 180, 90)
QF - 18% (360, 180, 90, 45)
R16 - 9% (180, 90, 45, 20)
R32 - 4.5% (90, 45, 20, 5)
R64 - 2.25% (45, 20, 5, N/A)
R128 - 1% (10, 5, N/A, N/A)

That is the simplified version, which is not 100% correct. The percentages aren't exactly the same when you get down the 20 point or less results. Points from losing in the first round of a tournament can vary a little depending on qualifying results, wild cards, automatic bids, etc. (I think anyway). But, generally speaking, the above formula is a simpler way to keep track of it in your head and will give you a pretty close estimate to the reality.


The ATP World Tour Finals are different. The maximum is 1500 points, but points are award for each win (200 for round robin wins, 400 for SF, and 500 for the final). So, it is possible to win the tournament and get only 1100 points.

And, the Olympics are different (maximum of 750 points, and different points for finishing 3rd or 4th because of the bronze medal match).

Basically, the slams and 8 mandatory 1000's are counted whether you win or don't play (2000 or 0). Then you get the best six scores from the rest of your tournaments + the WTF if you qualify and earn points.

And, as stated, the points drop a year later when that tournament is played, which is why you here the term "defending points" or "points to defend" when people discuss the rankings. Djokovic won the Australian Open again this year, but his ATP Rankings point total did not change because the previous year's points were dropped.

Now, are you thoroughly confused more?

 

[spinovic]

Earned points will also have to be defended the next season.
For example: Djokovic won Montecarlo, he didn't get 1000 points for winning, he only got 400 points. This is because in 2012 he reached the final and won 600 points. He defended those 600 points by reaching the final.
Nadal on the other hand, lost 400 points because he didn't defend the 1000 from 2012 but he did reach the final and kept 600 of the 1000 from the year before.

Also, Nadal came out with a net +280 from the American HC swing, despite only playing one of the tournaments this year vs. both last year. His 1000 points for winning IW in 2013 was more than the 720 he got for two SF runs in 2012 (360+360).

 

[tennis_pro]

Can someone please explain the ATP point system? It's pretty complicated

What is it that you don't understand?

 

[Max G.]

Earned points will also have to be defended the next season.
For example: Djokovic won Montecarlo, he didn't get 1000 points for winning, he only got 400 points. This is because in 2012 he reached the final and won 600 points. He defended those 600 points by reaching the final.
Nadal on the other hand, lost 400 points because he didn't defend the 1000 from 2012 but he did reach the final and kept 600 of the 1000 from the year before.

Defending points isn't mentioned anywhere in the point system. It's a convenient way of thinking about it for some people, but it's not mentioned anywhere in the rankings. It just confuses people.

The way it works, fundamentaly, is:

1) Every tournament is worth some amount of points; the better a player does that the more points they earn there.
2) Points last exactly one year - so a year after a player plays in a tournament, those points expire and the player has to re-earn them (such as by playing the same tournament again).
3) There's some rules about what tournaments players HAVE to get points from and limits on how many small tournaments players can count for points.

 

[decrepitude]

Yes, it's better to avoid thinking of "defending" points from a tournament. Sometimes tournaments are not played at the exact same time each year (best example is Olympic years, but it does happen other times). Points drop after 52 weeks (except for WTF, which is a special case), which means occasionally you can have points from two years at a tournament counting at the same time - or neither year counting. All depends on timing.

 

[spinovic]

I agree on the defending points thing, from a beginner perspective of trying to figure it out. But, once you do, it is a shorter, simpler way of stating the situation.

Federer has 1000 points to defend at Madrid.

Federer needs to win Madrid and earn 1000 points because last year's Madrid win and 1000 points will be dropped.

 

[vernonbc]

You guys are explaining the point system as it refers to the Top 30 players. For players farther down the rankings, the requirements for tournaments played is quite different.

Also, Nadal came out with a net +280 from the American HC swing, despite only playing one of the tournaments this year vs. both last year. His 1000 points for winning IW in 2013 was more than the 720 he got for two SF runs in 2012 (360+360).

What I think is unfair is that (Top 30) players who are injured still get penalized for not playing the mandatory 500 tournaments and it makes it that much more difficult for them when they are trying to make their way back up the rankings. E.g., Rafa has two zero point penalties against him that won't drop off until November so he can't count his Vina del Mar or Halle points. That's 195 points that would help in his quest to get to #4 before the French Open.

 

[tommynguyen101]

I understand now. Thank you!

 

[forzamilan90]

You're most welcome!

 

[spinovic]

You guys are explaining the point system as it refers to the Top 30 players. For players farther down the rankings, the requirements for tournaments played is quite different.



What I think is unfair is that (Top 30) players who are injured still get penalized for not playing the mandatory 500 tournaments and it makes it that much more difficult for them when they are trying to make their way back up the rankings. E.g., Rafa has two zero point penalties against him that won't drop off until November so he can't count his Vina del Mar or Halle points. That's 195 points that would help in his quest to get to #4 before the French Open.

Yeah - I'm not bothering trying to figure out lower ranked players and all the qualifying points and such.

I agree on Rafa though. They should make some adjustments for an obviously legit injury. But, it is what it is.

 

[mariecon]

You guys are explaining the point system as it refers to the Top 30 players. For players farther down the rankings, the requirements for tournaments played is quite different.



What I think is unfair is that (Top 30) players who are injured still get penalized for not playing the mandatory 500 tournaments and it makes it that much more difficult for them when they are trying to make their way back up the rankings. E.g., Rafa has two zero point penalties against him that won't drop off until November so he can't count his Vina del Mar or Halle points. That's 195 points that would help in his quest to get to #4 before the French Open.

How is that not fair? What's to stop players from faking injuries so they can skip mandatory tournaments they just don't want to play?

 

[veroniquem]

What I think is unfair is that (Top 30) players who are injured still get penalized for not playing the mandatory 500 tournaments and it makes it that much more difficult for them when they are trying to make their way back up the rankings. E.g., Rafa has two zero point penalties against him that won't drop off until November so he can't count his Vina del Mar or Halle points. That's 195 points that would help in his quest to get to #4 before the French Open.

Players get penalized for that WHILE on injury break That's insane :evil:

 

[RodSmooth]

I notice this every time i see the site.

You can tell that th system is jacked up because, Monfils isn't at #1.