new rankings system

[Roberto]

Many players have already been no1 without winning a Grand Slam tournament. The ATP/WTA points ranking system is pretty good and definitely well planned. I still think that a Grand Slam tournament-win should count for more in the rankings.

A suggestion: the most important thing in the rankings system would be the amount of Grand Slam tournament wins/ year. The ATP/WTA points would determine the rest of the rankings order.

For example:
1 GS-tournament win: a guaranteed ranking in top 4.
Two players with 2 GS-tournament wins: the ATP/WTA points would determine the no1 ranking.
No GS-tournament wins: not possible to get the no1 ranking.

Thoughts ?

 

[joeri888]

No.. Slams are important, but not saying it all. If a guy like Federer decides to only play the Slams, he shouldn't be the no. 1 by winning 2 of them. Rankings are not saying who necessarily is the best player, but who had the best 12 months overall. The rankings show that pretty well.

 

[Talker]

Then the players could neglect the smaller tournaments. Less top players at smaller tournaments. Less people coming to smaller tournaments because the big names aren't there.

 

[Bryan Swartz]

Exactly. There would be no reason for the best players to play anything but a GS. This would be catastrophic for the sport.

Also, why is it that you think it's wrong for a non-GS winner to be #1? It's the entry ranking system, not the best-at-slams rankings system.

 

[Heracles]

The rankings system works perfectly for the ATP. If this is not broken, don't fix it.

The only abberation is Soderling above Murray but except that, We have the best ranked at their place.

It's the WTA who has a problem.

 

[Starfury]

The rankings system works perfectly for the ATP. If this is not broken, don't fix it.

The only abberation is Soderling above Murray but except that, We have the best ranked at their place.

It's the WTA who has a problem.

If the rankings system works for the ATP, it works for the WTA.
It may not work for some of the self-appointed top players who have yet to learn that showing up is 90% of life.

 

[Heracles]

If the rankings system works for the ATP, it works for the WTA.
It may not work for some of the self-appointed top players who have yet to learn that showing up is 90% of life.

In other words it does not work for the WTA because the state of the tour is bad.

 

[TMF]

Many players have already been no1 without winning a Grand Slam tournament. The ATP/WTA points ranking system is pretty good and definitely well planned. I still think that a Grand Slam tournament-win should count for more in the rankings.

A suggestion: the most important thing in the rankings system would be the amount of Grand Slam tournament wins/ year. The ATP/WTA points would determine the rest of the rankings order.

For example:
1 GS-tournament win: a guaranteed ranking in top 4.
Two players with 2 GS-tournament wins: the ATP/WTA points would determine the no1 ranking.
No GS-tournament wins: not possible to get the no1 ranking.

Thoughts ?

No. A thousand times No!

If a player only play great for 2 weeks and win a slam and then win nothing else, he automatically in the top 4. But what about a player who doesn't win a slam but making the finals, and consistently competing/winning other tier 1 events(MS)? You put too much weight on one event which only stretch 2 wks. Tennis is play on all 4 seasons, all major and minor events count. The ATP limited to 18(?) events per year, it's the player responsibilty to show up and play. The CHALLENGE is how consistentlly a player can compete day in day out. That's the fairest way to grade a player!

 

[armsty]

This has got to be the dumbest idea.

 

[dr325i]

Why would the GS be worth more than twice the Masters1000??? I believe it is fair as it is. The Slam and the Masters have the same entry number of players, same 7 rounds to the championship...
The marketing and the name/tradition are worth extra, but not more than it is right now...