Is the 2009 point system starting a trend to reducing the signifigance of GrandSlams?

[PCXL-Fan]

Is the 2009 point system starting a trend to reducing the signifigance of GrandSlams?

IIRC there is has been an ongoing business turfwar between the ITF (whcih controls the slams), the ATP and many of the non slam tournament owners. The ATP and other tournament holders wants alot more recognition and prestige, which is likely the aim of the revamping of the ATP tour, which is now dubbed the ATP World Tour.

For the most part what the new point system does is effectively double the points given for the even. Its retroactive so they double valid points for last year.

But if you notice for GrandSlams other than the Winner getting 2000 points which (relative) would be in line with past years, all other placements in the grand slams have reduced point significance compared to past years. (yes they doubled the points, but i hope people are smart enough to realize I'm talking relative point worth compared to other events)

Taking a look at Federer. For reaching the 2009 AO Final he gets 1200 (effectively 600), where as in 2008 he got 1400 (prior point system: 700) for all his final finishes.

Federer
http://www.atpworldtour.com/tennis/3/en/players/playerprofiles/pointsbreakdown.asp?player=F324&ss=y

Delpotro is the same. His quarter final result in a Slam is worth less points than last years.
http://www.atpworldtour.com/tennis/3/en/players/playerprofiles/pointsbreakdown.asp?player=D683&ss=y


Points worth in 2008 Grand slams PRIOR to the revamp: (first number is last years tounaments under the new point system, Slams used to be worth EFFECTIVELY more)
Winner - 2000 (old point system: 1000)
Finalist - 1400 (ops: 700)
Semifinalist - 900 (ops: 450)
Quarterfinalist - 500 (ops: 250)
R16 - 300 (ops: 150)
R32 - 150 (ops: 75)
R64 - 70 (ops: 35)
R128 - 10 (ops: 5)

Points worth in 2009 tournaments: (in the brackets is an apples to apples comparison to previous tournaments)
Winner - 2000 (if under the old point system it would be effectively: 1000)
Finalist - 1200 (600)
Semifinalist - 720 (360)
Quarterfinalist - 360 (180)
R16 - 180 (90)
R32 - 90 (45)
R64 - 45 (23)
R128 - 10 (5)

Good? Bad?

Discuss.

 

[egn]

I think all tournaments though saw an equal proportional increase of point differences for round. Like I think you used to get more in the finals of a master series than you get this year..if that is the case it is not significance of grandslams..it is just to avoid benefiting those who never win anything from being in the top..you know the nalbandian, blake, ferrer, gonzales types.

 

[gj011]

I think it is the same for the other tournaments. Winner gets more relative points than before.

Also smaller tournaments were actually devalued comparing to GS and Masters. For example many series 500 tournamnets (250 in old points) were giving 300 points for the winner, and 250 series tournaments (125 in old points) were giving 200 or 175 point for the winner.

PS. LOL I made it to your signature

 

[PCXL-Fan]

I think all tournaments though saw an equal proportional increase of point differences for round. Like I think you used to get more in the finals of a master series than you get this year..if that is the case it is not significance of grandslams..it is just to avoid benefiting those who never win anything from being in the top..you know the nalbandian, blake, ferrer, gonzales types.

I was thinking about that, in order for them to prevent jankovic and rios phenomenon. But that would mean they are doing this for the 1000, 500 and 250 series events as well.

 

[tennismonster]

i remember them commentating about this, about so futures cannot make it as easier to high rankings and not really going through nadal,fed, etc...

 

[Nadal_Freak]

Great decision. I think second place got too much before as proven by how long Fed was able to stay number 1 despite Nadal having the completely better year last year until right before the US Open.

 

[PCXL-Fan]

One thing though, now, making it to the final of a grand slam is worth just a bit more points then winning a 1000 Master Series Shield. Doesn't seem right...

 

[seffina]

The new points system just values winning titles more.

 

[PCXL-Fan]

For GrandSlams i think they should have left the points for the other placements untouched and raise the points for the winners to 2500 (1250 in the old point system)
Of course the ATP tour and non tournament directors would never allow the ITF to further increase the prestige of the Slams and leave the master series events standing in their shadow.

 

[barry]

Golf uses the accumulative amount of money earned in a 52 week period, which is the best ranking system of them all.

The more prize money, the better the competition. And if you win a tournament, then you qualify for the masters, maybe tennis should use a similar system.