inflated ranking points for losing in finals or earlier is a terrible idea

[geromino]

Points should be halved each round (e.g. 1000 for masters champion, 500 for finalist, 250 for semifinalist, etc.). Inflating points is nonsense. It allowed players like Zverev, who was holding 0 slams, to be ranked higher than Alcaraz, who was holding 2 slams and clearly the #1/2 player in the world). Casper Ruud was a match away from the #1 ranking in 2022. It is like a system of participation points for the loser. Discuss.

 

[Mainad]

What really irritates me is when a player who has done bugger all in the season still manages to climb over somebody else who's only crime was not to be able to defend ranking points even if only barely. Undoubtedly the big flaw in the 12 month ranking system.

 

[messiahrobins]

What really irritates me is when a player who has done bugger all in the season still manages to climb over somebody else who's only crime was not to be able to defend ranking points even if only barely. Undoubtedly the big flaw in the 12 month ranking system.

The rankings are a waste of time really, their only purpose in actual fact is to find a way to seed players for events. You raise the absurdity point very well, that was brought in as the idea of doing the way they do is that it reflects current form so would make seeding players more accurate.

 

[RaulRamirez]

What really irritates me is when a player who has done bugger all in the season still manages to climb over somebody else who's only crime was not to be able to defend ranking points even if only barely. Undoubtedly the big flaw in the 12 month ranking system.

How would you - or others - change this? I don't necessarily see a problem with what you cited unless

Actually, I am fine with the rolling 52-week ranking system, as at any point, you're viewing results over a year's expanse of time.
Of course, by year's end, it lines up with the regular calendar. There may be minor tweaks that I'd make, but not too many.

 

[ChrisJR3264]

Yeah I mean ranking system is flawed a bit but how else do you improve it? Like sinner now has to defend everything from July through January while Carlos and others have points to gain.

If alcaraz breaks his ankle for example round 2 of RG he’s out 3880 points or something due to no defense in points the next 8-10 weeks. I don’t like the protective ranking BS bc you can lose all your points but have a PR of 5 bud only get 5 tourneys to build your ranking up as an unseeded player. Lol

 

[geromino]

What really irritates me is when a player who has done bugger all in the season still manages to climb over somebody else who's only crime was not to be able to defend ranking points even if only barely. Undoubtedly the big flaw in the 12 month ranking system.

It would make more sense to linearly depreciate the points from an event to zero over the course of a year or so, so recent events matter more.

 

[socallefty]

It is a 1-year ranking system. Why should older events be depreciated? If you want to look only at the current season, look up the ‘Race to Turin’ rankings.

 

[Kralingen]

This is an incredibly stupid thread

You don’t get points for ‘losing’ the Final… you accumulate Finalist points for winning the 6 matches (1R, 2R, 3R, 4R, QF, SF) on the way there. The 2000 points are the reward for winning the Final, but you’ve already earned the 1200 points no matter what.

 

[GoatNo1]

up to 2009 the finalist was given 70% of winner. in noles era it drop to 60% and now it is in between with 65%.

 

[JasonZ]

This is an incredibly stupid thread

You don’t get points for ‘losing’ the Final… you accumulate Finalist points for winning the 6 matches (1R, 2R, 3R, 4R, QF, SF) on the way there. The 2000 points are the reward for winning the Final, but you’ve already earned the 1200 points no matter what.

this is true. still you can argue that a final win is equally important than all other wins before.

 

[boredone3456]

The system reflects an entire year of play. The majors make up 2 months of a 10 month season. Yes they are worth the most points but its not the systems fault if a player wins one or 2 and then gets injured or doesn't perform nearly as well everywhere else. People love to blame the system, but its not the system's fault if the players get hurt or don't deliver on expectations. If you have a major, and the 2000 points that come with it and can't manage to be in the top 4 thats not really on the system,.

 

[RaulRamirez]

It would make more sense to linearly depreciate the points from an event to zero over the course of a year or so, so recent events matter more.

I don't see the merit to that -- it would only seem to bring confusion to the mix.
Whether it's ideal now or not, there is clarity now, which is a big component of fairness.