Is there any chance that player can get their points deducted?

[tennisfan94]

Maybe I didn't quite catch that, but did Wozniacki get an amount of points deducted (~580 points)?
I heard that if she doesn't win a match she may get some points deducted... I know they would have checked something about her matches last year and according to this "rule", she could have lost some points. I don't know whether she lost them or not.
Same with Fed. If he didn't win the final in Rotterdam, he would have got some points deducted, thus Rafa would have remained #1 in the ranking.
I know there is a similar rule. A friend of mine said that, too. It doesn't matter how points you have. If you lose an amount of matches, you lose points.
It sounds ridiculous but I would really like to know more about this rule.

I know it's not clear, but I've been told that there is a rule where players can lose their points, without playing but just depending on stats.

Moreover -- what does it mean when a player is "with no ranking"? Example, when Del Potro came back with no ranking and got a WC....
No ranking?! Maybe it means "slipped out the top 100"?

HELP ME.
Thank you.

 

[Deanjam]

Ranking points are accrued over a 12 month period. So players points drop off a year after they are earned. If a player doesn't play for a year or longer then they will be left with zero points. Players aren't deducted points for losing, but if their results at a tournament are worse than the previous year then they will earn less points and will end up with a total less than when they played the tournament.

For instance Federer has 1000 points to defend at Indian Wells as he won there last year. If he were to, say, lose in the final this year then he would receive 600 points and as such would have 400 points less in total than he did at the start of the tournament.

Hope that helps.

 

[moonballs]

Pova got her AO points deducted after she was tested positive.

 

[tacou]

Maybe I didn't quite catch that, but did Wozniacki get an amount of points deducted (~580 points)?
I heard that if she doesn't win a match she may get some points deducted... I know they would have checked something about her matches last year and according to this "rule", she could have lost some points. I don't know whether she lost them or not.
Same with Fed. If he didn't win the final in Rotterdam, he would have got some points deducted, thus Rafa would have remained #1 in the ranking.
I know there is a similar rule. A friend of mine said that, too. It doesn't matter how points you have. If you lose an amount of matches, you lose points.
It sounds ridiculous but I would really like to know more about this rule.

I know it's not clear, but I've been told that there is a rule where players can lose their points, without playing but just depending on stats.

Moreover -- what does it mean when a player is "with no ranking"? Example, when Del Potro came back with no ranking and got a WC....
No ranking?! Maybe it means "slipped out the top 100"?

HELP ME.
Thank you.

Ranking points last for 52 weeks and then they expire. However, since most tourneys occur exactly one year later, a player usually only loses or gains a relatively small amount, unless they lose early/don't play or win an event they didn't do well in the previous year.

You are not "penalized" for losing a certain number of matches, you just don't get as many points as you would for advancing further. (However as the other poster pointed out, if you are found guilty of cheating, you can have points taken away)

If you do not compete for a full 52 weeks, you will have 0 points and therefore have no ranking. You may qualify for a protected ranking, but that is only to get into tournaments, your actual ranking is still very low or nonexistent.
A player ranked 110 or even 600 still has ranking points.

 

[tennisfan94]

For instance Federer has 1000 points to defend at Indian Wells as he won there last year. If he were to, say, lose in the final this year then he would receive 600 points and as such would have 400 points less in total than he did at the start of the tournament.

Thank you a lot for your answer. I have some doubts, though...
I checked out this website -- http://www.stevegtennis.com/atp-tennis-ranking-points/
If you look at "Masters 1000" , you'll see that players that win the F, they receive 1000 points. If they lose in the final, as you said, they receive only 600 points. But, that's totally normal. It has nothing to do with the results in the last year. If points expire after a year (52 weeks), thus it's a new start for players. They start everything again from zero. That's normal. If Federer wins the final, he gains 1000. Otherwise 600 points (SF points).

The other poster said that you are not penalized, but that's what I heard on TV. If you don't play a tournament worse than last year, you are penalized and you gain less points as if it were a penalty.
Maybe I am wrong.

 

[tennisfan94]

For instance Federer has 1000 points to defend at Indian Wells as he won there last year. If he were to, say, lose in the final this year then he would receive 600 points and as such would have 400 points less in total than he did at the start of the tournament.

Thank you a lot for your answer. I have some doubts, though...
I checked out this website -- http://www.stevegtennis.com/atp-tennis-ranking-points/
If you look at "Masters 1000" , you'll see that players that win the F, they receive 1000 points. If they lose in the final, as you said, they receive only 600 points. But, that's totally normal. It has nothing to do with the results in the last year. If points expire after a year (52 weeks), thus it's a new start for players. They start everything again from zero. That's normal. If Federer wins the final, he gains 1000. Otherwise 600 points (SF points).

The other poster said that you are not penalized, but that's what I heard on TV. If you don't play a tournament worse than last year, you are penalized and you gain less points as if it were a penalty.
Maybe I am wrong.

 

[tennisfan94]

Anyway I wanted to thank you all for answering me. Appreciate that.

 

[fecaleagle]

The points from the previous year fall off immediately prior to the same week/tournament in the schedule.

As you stated, if a tournament is worth 1000 points, a player earns 600 points for a final and 1000 points for a win. So a player stands to gain 1000 ranking points for winning and gain 5 ranking points for losing in the first round. HOWEVER, for example, if Federer doesn't play Indian Wells this year, he will gain 0 ranking points. Given that his 1000 points from winning Indian Wells in 2017 will be lost immediately prior to the tournament, he will have lost 1000 total rankings points.

The clearest way to visualize this distinction is to compare ATP/WTA ranking points vs ATP/WTA race points. Federer has 10105 ranking points (this year + remaining tournaments from last year) and 2500 race points (this year only).

When the season ends, 100% of a player's points are from the current season, but each week during the current season, a player loses their points from the same week in the previous year. So while Caroline can't "lose" any of her gained points from this year, she does lose total points by not playing a tournament that she earned points for last year.

 

[ChrisRF]

@OP:

Just forget the concept of „defending points“ at a certain tournament as a reality. It is just a rhetorical phrase because mostly players play at the same tournaments every year in the same calendar week.

You should rather see the rankings as a never-ending 52-week-period where all points that are older are going to disappear. That is no penalty for a certain outcome at a tournament, but the normal process. Then a player has a chance to gain points again.

All that is more obvious when you look at a live ranking page like
https://live-tennis.eu/
where the points are already removed before the tournament.

Also the fact that there are often 2 or 3 smaller tournaments during the same week show you that “defending points at a certain tournament” is not a reality. It doesn’t matter if you play the same tournament like last year (maybe Doha) or another one (maybe Brisbane). You always lose last year’s points and gain the new year’s points.

 

[tennisfan94]

The clearest way to visualize this distinction is to compare ATP/WTA ranking points vs ATP/WTA race points. Federer has 10105 ranking points (this year + remaining tournaments from last year) and 2500 race points (this year only).

I have got some doubts.
From Wikipedia: "...Every player starts at zero at the beginning of the year and the player who accumulates the most points by season's end is the World Number 1" and "Every player, regardless of his performances in the previous year, starts with zero points...".
My question is: if every player starts with zero points at the beginning of year why does Federer have 10105 points in the ranking? The points of the remaining tournaments of the last year should drop off at the beginning of this year, right?! Federer should have only 2500 points. If he starts this year with 0 zero points, why does he have 10105 points?
Those points should not be included in this year's ranking.

 

[tennisfan94]

I am sorry. I was wrong. Now i understood. The zero points refer to the single tournament, not the whole year.
Talking about Federer, he just lost 45 points because he didn't play the Dubai Open while last year he lost in the second round.
My question is: if he LOST in the second round, it means that he had gained only 20 points in the first round. It was Donskoj who won the second round and gained 45 points. If he didn't play the Dubai Open this year, he lost the total of those points. But why did he have to defend 45 points?
Looking at the live ranking, he has lost 45 points... if he had won only the 1st round he should have defended 20 points and not 45 points.
The 45 points are for the person who wins the second round in a 500 ATP Tour. He did not.
Could you please clarify?

Thank you.

 

[noobforehand20]

you won a 1000 points last year for winning last year in IW, you made semis this year (360 points), because you did not earn those 1000 points again, you end up losing 640 pts for not being able to replicate, tge opposite is true also:

you made the quarters last year so 180 pts, you made the semis this year (360)r, you earn 180 points

 

[noobforehand20]

you won a 1000 points last year for winning last year in IW, you made semis this year (360 points), because you did not earn those 1000 points again, you end up losing 640 pts for not being able to replicate, tge opposite is true also:

you made the quarters last year so 180 pts, you made the semis this year (360)r, you earn 180 points

 

[fecaleagle]

Talking about Federer, he just lost 45 points because he didn't play the Dubai Open while last year he lost in the second round.
My question is: if he LOST in the second round, it means that he had gained only 20 points in the first round. If he didn't play the Dubai Open this year, he lost the total of those points. But why did he have to defend 45 points?

I think you're thinking about this too much. Take @ChrisRF's advice above and stop thinking about "defending" points at a single tournament, which is ultimately just a rhetorical device.

Actually, last year, Federer earned 45 points for winning in the first round/making it to the second round. In Dubai, the second round is the round of 16:

http://www.stevegtennis.com/atp-tennis-ranking-points/

He loses 45 ranking points because those points from last year are over a year old. A player's ranking points are comprised of the points accumulated in the last calendar year. Since Federer didn't play Dubai, he earned 0 points this week for THIS year. 45 points were removed because this week last year, he earned 45 points by making it to the second round. Honestly, I would say don't worry about it. At the end of the year, all of the points are from 2018, so in some sense, you do start at 0. Points are preserved from the prior year only to maintain rankings; if everyone started at 0, there would be no way to seed the tournaments appropriately. For example, Federer and Nadal didn't play before the Australian Open, but say 128 other players did play the smaller tournaments before the AO. If the rankings started at 0, Nadal and Federer would not have made the Australian Open main draw. It's a rolling point system, where you only earn points for the matches you play each year, but your ranking is determined by the points you've earned this year, plus the remaining points from last year. People talk about defending or losing points, but at the end of the 2018, a player's points are the points he or she earned in 2018.

Edit: Correction (thanks ChrisRF).

 

[Deleted member 688153]

You gain X points from a tournament.
Pretty much all tournaments are held every 52 weeks.
The following year (52 weeks later), you gain Y points from the same tournament.
After the final Sunday of the event, the rankings update, the 52 weeks is up from last year's event, X points drop off your total, and Y points are added - at exactly the same time.

That's it.

 

[ghostofMecir]

Thank you a lot for your answer. I have some doubts, though...
I checked out this website -- http://www.stevegtennis.com/atp-tennis-ranking-points/
If you look at "Masters 1000" , you'll see that players that win the F, they receive 1000 points. If they lose in the final, as you said, they receive only 600 points. But, that's totally normal. It has nothing to do with the results in the last year. If points expire after a year (52 weeks), thus it's a new start for players. They start everything again from zero. That's normal. If Federer wins the final, he gains 1000. Otherwise 600 points (SF points).

The other poster said that you are not penalized, but that's what I heard on TV. If you don't play a tournament worse than last year, you are penalized and you gain less points as if it were a penalty.
Maybe I am wrong.

No offense, but you’re hopeless.

 

[JackGates]

You gain X points from a tournament.
Pretty much all tournaments are held every 52 weeks.
The following year (52 weeks later), you gain Y points from the same tournament.
After the final Sunday of the event, the rankings update, the 52 weeks is up from last year's event, X points drop off your total, and Y points are added - at exactly the same time.

That's it.

How is that any different than it was before without the defending? Basically the guy with most points is nr.1, isn't defending just semantics?

 

[Max G.]

Yes, defending is just semantics.

 

[Deleted member 688153]

How is that any different than it was before without the defending? Basically the guy with most points is nr.1, isn't defending just semantics?

Yes. Of course.

 

[ChrisRF]

I think you're thinking about this too much. Take @ChrisRF's advice above and stop thinking about "defending" points at a single tournament, which is ultimately just a rhetorical device.

Actually, last year, Federer earned 45 points for winning in the first round/making it to the second round. In Dubai, the second round is the round of 16:

http://www.stevegtennis.com/atp-tennis-ranking-points/

He loses 45 ranking points because those points from last year are over a year old. A player's ranking points are comprised of the points accumulated in the last calendar year. Since Federer didn't play Dubai, he earned 0 points this week for THIS year. 45 points were removed because this week last year, he earned 45 points by making it to the second round. You earn 20 points in Dubai by losing in the first round, since it's a 32-person draw. Honestly, I would say don't worry about it. At the end of the year, all of the points are from 2018, so in some sense, you do start at 0. Points are preserved from the prior year only to maintain rankings; if everyone started at 0, there would be no way to seed the tournaments appropriately. For example, Federer and Nadal didn't play before the Australian Open, but say 128 other players did play the smaller tournaments before the AO. If the rankings started at 0, Nadal and Federer would not have made the Australian Open main draw. It's a rolling point system, where you only earn points for the matches you play each year, but your ranking is determined by the points you've earned this year, plus the remaining points from last year. People talk about defending or losing points, but at the end of the 2018, a player's points are the points he or she earned in 2018.

Thank you, that is another good summary and explanation!

Small correction though: A loss in the first match of a 500 or 250 tournament always brings 0 points. The 20 points for losing in R32 at 500s only occur when the draw is bigger than 32 AND if you have no bye before. But I don’t know if there are still tournaments on this level with a bigger draw than 32 anyway. I remember Queen’s had it at a time, but changed it some years ago.

Only at Grand Slams and Masters you can gain 10 points for losing your first match.

 

[FHtennisman]

You gain X points from a tournament.
Pretty much all tournaments are held every 52 weeks.
The following year (52 weeks later), you gain Y points from the same tournament.
After the final Sunday of the event, the rankings update, the 52 weeks is up from last year's event, X points drop off your total, and Y points are added - at exactly the same time.

That's it.

The previous year's points drop before the tournament starts I think and then of course, the points you gain in the tournament are added onto the ranking the Monday after the tournament. So X points drop off before the tournament starts and Y points are added when the tournaments ends, on the Monday subsequent to the tournament final.

So for example, Fed's 1000 points and everyone else who participated in IW last year will have their points taken off the rankings and then whatever round they make in this year's IW, that will be added to the rankings.

@tennisfan94