REVISED: Updated Open era achievment ranking system using current ATP weighting

[ADuck]

"inflated points"?
Nadal just won 200 points per match for winning the Monte Carlo Masters (as most masters tournaments have 5 rounds for the top seeds), so gained as much as per win as someone would when beating players in the round robin stage of the WTF. I think this isn't too wrong, is it?
And I don't get your point about the surface either. It's just another tournament. There is nothing to balance out here and it doesn't make it any different. The whole "winning after losing" story is not a point distribution problem (you get points for losing a Grand Slam final too) but part of the round robin format. You don't need to like it but it's there and it certainly has it's reasons.

No he didn't. You need to look up how points are awarded in masters 1000's and slams, they are not awarded like that. If you don't get my point, as it is clear you don't, then you simply don't get it. I'm not going to explain it over and over to random people instead of them just reading all of my posts before replying.

 

[ADuck]

There is no issue with it being a round robin in early matches. A lot of the major sporting events in the world have round robin eg World Cup Soccer, World Cup Rugby and America's Cup sailing - just a few. Also remember no one in history has won the title whilst losing more than 1 round robin match. The WTF is regarded as the Number 5 tournament - and in times in its history has been regarded as a defacto major (particularly in the late 70s and 80s). I have read articles on this tournament since the 1970's and it has always been regarded highly. Most of the current top players rate it extremely highly including Nadal who has said in recent years that it is a major goal of his to win it.

Sure I know, but saying people rate it highly doesn't really address anything I've posted.

 

[kOaMaster]

No he didn't. You need to look up how points are awarded in masters 1000's and slams, they are not awarded like that. If you don't get my point, as it is clear you don't, then you simply don't get it. I'm not going to explain it over and over to random people instead of them just reading all of my posts before replying.

I know it's not how points are given, just wanted to give a comparison. Since 200/400 points are not counted here in this ranking I don't really see the problem - the cases where someone wins 600 points but then loses the semis wouldn't change anything in this ranking if they weren't count (even if you'd removed the runner-up with 1 loss/800 points as well).
It's just a different format and I think winning the season end event is worth 1500 points and 1000 points for the runner-up isn't too wrong either - don't you agree with this?
So I really don't see where you are going with the whole "points inflated" story in context with this achievements list.

If you are just unhappy that Lendl is ahead of Nadal in the rankings (which I think we all agree, in a "greatest tennis players of all times-list he definitely wouldn't be), you can take a look at the very last entry and see where the big difference is:
(42 x 0.50) for Lendl vs (19 x 0.50) for Nadal.
Those 500-pointers are heavy on this achievements list and arguably obliterate differences in "greatness" (same goes for connors by the way). It has been discussion quite a bit in this thread as well.

 

[abmk]

Okay let's assume this then, Slam QF = entered at WTF. Points up for grabs for advancing from QF to WIN at a slam is 2000-360 = 1640 points. However, total possible amount of points to be played for is: (360*4) + (480*2) + (800*1) = 3200 points compared with 6600 points from the WTF. Still far more points at the WTF, even with this in mind. The tournament is set up in a way that you can still win points even after losing matches, that's probably where most of the inflated points come from.

where did you get that # : 6600 points for the WTF ?

1200 points for each RR side (6 matches on each RR side : 200 points each) = 2*1200 = 2400
400 points for each winning SFist = 2*400 = 800
500 points for winner of final = 500

Total = 3700. This is for a total of 15 matches. (12 RR, 2 SFs, 1 final)

Slams from QF onwards is for a total of 7 matches (4 QFs, 2 SFs, 1 final) --> 3200 points.

 

[ADuck]

where did you get that # : 6600 points for the WTF ?

1200 points for each RR side (6 matches on each RR side : 200 points each) = 2*1200 = 2400
400 points for each winning SFist = 2*400 = 800
500 points for winner of final = 500

Total = 3700. This is for a total of 15 matches. (12 RR, 2 SFs, 1 final)

Slams from QF onwards is for a total of 7 matches (4 QFs, 2 SFs, 1 final) --> 3200 points.

I made a mistake, that's correct.

 

[timnz]

@timnz I think I understand how this works. You've only counted achievements in which the player has gained at least 500 points. The only criticism I have of this is it lends too much weight for the tour finals where it seems hundreds of points are awarded for single victories. The inflated points which are gained there is just one part of the problem however. The inflated points are only available on ONE tournament on ONE surface throughout the whole year. That will put too heavy an influence on a type of player who does well on indoor HC. To balance this out, one could have multiple "tour finals" on multiple different surfaces dispersed throughout the year, however then that would defeat the purpose of calling them tour finals.

I don’t think there is inflation. Players have won 2000 points for a slam without player a top player. The fact is the level of opposition justifies the large number of points on offer.

 

[kandamrgam]

The list is unobjective. Because the ATP rankings are already disputable and arbitrary. According to the ATP, the Olympic Gold in singles has a value of 0 points. Does it mean an ATP 250 is more valuable than an Olympic Medal? If your answer is no, you know the ATP-based ranking is far from being "objective" and undisputable.

Don't get me wrong, it is necessary to take into account the ATP ranking to some degree. But not in all aspects.

The list is objective as it can reasonably be. You are misunderstanding what "objective" means. Objective stats have to be factual - repeatable, reproducible, verifiable bla bla - that's all. You are confusing it with "valuable", "meaningful". Timnz's list may (most definitely) not be valuable in determining greatness.

ATP points maybe disputable (according to you) but it is not arbitrary. This list objectively determines who accumulated most points in his career, but not who is the better player.

Sent from my NEM-L22 using Tapatalk

 

[chut]

The list is objective as it can reasonably be. You are misunderstanding what "objective" means. Objective stats have to be factual - repeatable, reproducible, verifiable bla bla - that's all. You are confusing it with "valuable", "meaningful". Timnz's list may (most definitely) not be valuable in determining greatness.

ATP points maybe disputable (according to you) but it is not arbitrary. This list objectively determines who accumulated most points in his career, but not who is the better player.

Sent from my NEM-L22 using Tapatalk

Exactly!

I wouldn't say Lendl is better than Nadal, he isn't, but this list proves that he is vastly underrated, because his career was actually greater than most think.
This Sport guy probably doesn't know that Lendl couldn't even participate in Olympic games and that it meant probably nothing to him. Also, that he wasn't obsessed with his GS tally, because slams weren't the only measure for greatness at the times. Some of his wins ranked here as 500 are probably more like some tough M1000 (like... tougher than 2018 Monte Carlo) so this Lendl hate should stop.

 

[Zhilady]

Did you read the whole quote? Please just don't argue with me if you're going to quote things out of context and criticize them

I did. You said participating in the WTF guarantees you a whole bunch of points. It doesn’t, as Nadal’s 2009 campaign proves. Your post was factually wrong. End of.

 

[ADuck]

I did. You said participating in the WTF guarantees you a whole bunch of points. It doesn’t, as Nadal’s 2009 campaign proves. Your post was factually wrong. End of.

LOL. Sour grapes

 

[Zhilady]

This isn't really the right way to look at it though -- or at least it's a little bit shallow.

Consider that people are qualifying for an indoor hardcourt tournament on the basis of year-round results on multiple surfaces. That means guys like Dominic Thiem can gain most of their points on clay and then qualify for an indoor hardcourt tournament. You can't really equate that to being top 8 at a major, because if you're Roger Federer, you'd rather play Thiem at the WTF than a host of players who might be ranked 9-20.

That’s also the case for every tournament, isn’t it? You could qualify for Wimbledon just by winning the French Open and having 0 points on grass. You could qualify for the French Open just by winning Wimbledon and having 0 points on clay. Are you now going to suggest that the points won at a Slam are inflated and/or unearned?

There's also the timing issue. A player might have a gangbusters 1st half of the year and then limp into the WTF. Who would you rather play? A guy who limped into the WTF on the basis of great results Jan-April, or a guy in the QF of a major who just throttled 4 straight guys and is coming off a Masters win or final?

Do I really need to give you all the examples of players who’ve retired or withdrawn in the quarterfinals or semifinals of Slams? A player could be gassed out during the latter stages of any tournament. That isn’t specific to the WTF.

Finally, there are MANY more clay tournaments than there are grass tournaments. And players, you know, actually grow up training and playing on clay. In some respects I actually think you could make the argument that Wimbledon OVERSTATES grass play. If you want more gras tournaments you need to start from the bottom up imo.

I have no problem with the makeup of the tour, and I’m not saying grass should have more tournaments. I’m just saying that if you’re going to argue that WTF overrepresents Indoor Hardcourts, you would also have to argue that Rome and Madrid overrepresent Claycourts.

 

[Zhilady]

LOL. Sour grapes

I’m not a Nadal supporter, so I don’t think I can be called “sour grapes”. Or maybe you just didn’t know what that term meant or that it applies more to you than it does to me?

 

[Tennis_Hands]

Sure I know, but saying people rate it highly doesn't really address anything I've posted.

You post your own opinions and that is fine.

Just don't confuse them for facts or anything supported by the tennis tradition or healthy logic.

 

[ADuck]

I’m not a Nadal supporter, so I don’t think I can be called “sour grapes”. Or maybe you just didn’t know what that term meant or that it applies more to you than it does to me?

This reply is beautiful because it demonstrates exactly how you argue. Pretend to not understand anything I say, and then purposely misinterpret it to suit your own opinion/agenda. Either that or you are incapable. Good day sir!

 

[ADuck]

You post your own opinions and that is fine.

Just don't confuse them for facts or anything supported by the tennis tradition or healthy logic.

What I have posted is definitely an opinion for which I've used facts to support said opinion. Anyone is free to agree or disagree and support their own opinion with their own facts and or a subjective view point. That is the nature of argumentation. I'm glad you agree.

 

[Tennis_Hands]

What I have posted is definitely an opinion for which I've used facts to support said opinion. Anyone is free to agree or disagree and support their own opinion with their own facts and or a subjective view point. That is the nature of argumentation. I'm glad you agree.

When you disagree with the way the points are awarded during the WTF you don't support your stance with any relevant "facts", but merely choose to express your dissatisfaction with a long standing tradition.

Drawing false analogies with tournaments that have completely different structure and significance and latching onto exceptions rather than what is typical for the said tournament.

If I am generous, I would say that your opinion is shared by a very small and very uneducated in these matters group.

 

[FrontHeadlock]

That’s also the case for every tournament, isn’t it? You could qualify for Wimbledon just by winning the French Open and having 0 points on grass. You could qualify for the French Open just by winning Wimbledon and having 0 points on clay. Are you now going to suggest that the points won at a Slam are inflated and/on unearned?

Do I really need to give you all the examples of players who’ve retired or withdrawn in the quarterfinals or semifinals of Slams? A player could be gassed out during the latter stages of any tournament. That isn’t specific to the WTF.

I have no problem with the makeup of the tour, and I’m not saying grass should have more tournaments. I’m just saying that if you’re going to argue that WTF overrepresents Indoor Hardcourts, you would also have to argue that Rome and Madrid overrepresent Claycourts.

Good god what are you talking about?

 

[Zhilady]

Let's break this down. By only allowing the top 8 players to enter, they're only allowing the players who have gained the most points throughout the season to gain even more points? More inflation.

False, because everyone has an equal chance to qualify for the WTF. You are rewarded for qualifying for the WTF by being given the chance to earn more points. If you want to make more points, qualify for the WTF. You have an equal number of tournaments to do that as anybody else.

Your line of reasoning is akin to complaining that the Grand Slam tournaments allow only the top 32 to gain more points and not someone ranked 2000.

Furthermore, the top 8 aren't always the top 8 players playing at that moment and on that particular surface and that particular time.

The same is the case at Slams, where automatic entries are not always among the top 128 players playing at that moment and in that particular surface and that particular time. A lot of them aren’t even fit enough to finish their first round matches.

And simply qualifying for the tournament shouldn't almost guarantee you a plethora of points - again, why allow the people who have gained the most points during the season to only play in one specific tournament which allows them to further their lead significantly over the rest of the top 16?

Already addressed.

This isn't money, in business you use money to make more money, in ATP it seems to be the same with WTF. If you add up all the matches, 6600 points are up for grabs there. Divide 6600 by 8 and that's 825 points so the average (mean) is 825 points per person. Far more than any tournament in the whole year. If you add up all the matches in the slams: 11040 points divide by 128 is 86.25 points.

Again, qualifying for the WTF means you’re already in the top 8. The top 8 in Grand Slam tournaments get even more points than the top 8 at the WTF. I’ve already given you the numbers for this.

Far far less, much too far less. There's arguably far more diversity at a slam where the top 128 players face off against each other than only the top 8. The top 8 only have to fight each other for the points, where as in a slam you have to fight everyone.

Good point, which is why you can make more points at Slams than at the WTF. 2000 > 1500.

If you're talking masters. The variance is surfaces is 33% clay to 66% hard courts, still more variance than WTF offers. But the surface variance could be much better in masters, to that I agree, but if you're arguing 2 of 3 clay tournaments should be converted to grass tournaments than you have a flawed perception on what equal variance means. The ratio of grass:hard:clay should be 1:1:1 IMO. So the tour would be better off converting 3 hard tournaments into grass tournaments. My ideal ratio may differ to others I will admit.

Why limit variance to tiers instead of considering the entire makeup of the tour? For simplicity, by considering the “big” tournaments:

Outdoor Hardcourts: 9000 points
Claycourts: 5000 points
Grasscourts: 2000 points
Indoor Hardcourts: 2500 points

As you can see, Indoor Hardcourts is far from overrepresented.

This is not what I meant at all, and there's so many things wrong with this comparison to even start with. I said top 8 seeds, not top 8 at that tournament, because I've never seen the top 8 seeds all make it to the quaterfinals of a slam ever. Next, in this explanation you've put being top 8 at a slam on par with being top 8 at WTF. Being top 8 at a slam requires you to win at least 4 matches first, at WTF it requires none. And if you argue that they had to qualify for WTF, then it's simply more inflation as stated in response to your first quote.

All of which also applies to Slams at the lower rung, as I’ve already explained. If WTF inflates points for the top 8, Slams inflate points for the top 32.

Okay let's assume this then, Slam QF = entered at WTF. Points up for grabs for advancing from QF to WIN at a slam is 2000-360 = 1640 points. However, total possible amount of points to be played for is: (360*4) + (480*2) + (800*1) = 3200 points compared with 6600 points from the WTF. Still far more points at the WTF, even with this in mind. The tournament is set up in a way that you can still win points even after losing matches, that's probably where most of the inflated points come from.

6600 points? Could you explain that?

To my count, there are 12 RR matches, 2 semifinals, and 1 final.

12 x 200 = 2400
2 x 400 = 800
1 x 500 = 500

Total = 3700

Where did you get 6600 from?

Either way, yes, you kind of have to give more points for the entrants of the WTF, because they’re getting 0 points for qualifying for the WTF. On the other hand, you get points for qualifying for Slams and a lot of points to be made (360) before you even get to the top 8.

 

[Zhilady]

Good god what are you talking about?

I’m talking about the World Tour Finals.

Here is a link for you to get educated:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATP_Finals

 

[Zhilady]

This reply is beautiful because it demonstrates exactly how you argue. Pretend to not understand anything I say, and then purposely misinterpret it to suit your own opinion/agenda. Either that or you are incapable. Good day sir!

Okay, I’ll indulge you. What about my post was “sour grapes”?

 

[Zhilady]

What I have posted is definitely an opinion for which I've used facts to support said opinion. Anyone is free to agree or disagree and support their own opinion with their own facts and or a subjective view point. That is the nature of argumentation. I'm glad you agree.

Made-up non-facts are not facts.

 

[FrontHeadlock]

I’m talking about the World Tour Finals.

Here is a link for you to get educated:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATP_Finals

I can see that -- it's just that your "points" were pretty stunningly low IQ.

 

[Zhilady]

I can see that -- it's just that your "points" were pretty stunningly low IQ.

Which is why you don’t have a counter-argument, I guess. It’s okay, I’m known to have reduced people to ad hominem because they can’t refute my arguments.

 

[FrontHeadlock]

Which is why you don’t have a counter-argument, I guess. It’s okay, I’m known to have reduced people to ad hominem because they can’t refute my arguments.

I mean, I'm just waiting for you to reply to my first batch of points.

Lmao, "people qualify for the majors on the basis of other results"! Yeah, no kidding, the draws are 128 players and you win 10 points for a 1st round win. Someone like Federer isn't playing someone like Thiem in the later rounds of Wimbledon unless Thiem wins 3-4 matches on grass against other guys who are also winning matches on grass. But he's playing Thiem, for 200 points no less, on indoor hardcourt because Thiem won some matches on clay in April.

And I have no idea what you're talking about when you say I said the WTF overrepresents indoor hardcourts. My point on overrepresentation was solely limited to clay vs grass and how Wimbledon overstates grass ability precisely because there is so little grass play on tour.

 

[Zhilady]

I mean, I'm just waiting for you to reply to my first batch of points.

Lmao, "people qualify for the majors on the basis of other results"! Yeah, no kidding, the draws are 128 players and you win 10 points for a 1st round win. Someone like Federer isn't playing someone like Thiem in the later rounds of Wimbledon unless Thiem wins 3-4 matches on grass against other guys who are also winning matches on grass. But he's playing Thiem, for 200 points no less, on indoor hardcourt because Thiem won some matches on clay in April.

It’s not a question of how many points you win. It’s a matter of principle.

As far as qualification is concerned, I’ve already addressed the point. You don’t need a single point on clay to qualify for the French Open, and you don’t need a single point on grass to qualify for Wimbledon.

As far as the opposition is concerned, yes, you do get more points at the WTF during the first matches than you do at Grand Slam tournaments, but you also face more eligible players, on average. I’m sure you’d agree that even Thiem on Indoor Hardcourts is more of a challenge than the average 1st Round opponent for Federer at Wimbledon.

You’re right that Federer isn’t playing Thiem in the quarterfinals of Wimbledon, but he also isn’t walking away with 0 points if he loses the quarterfinal at Wimbledon. He gets 360 points. Those 360 points (or the WTF’s equivalent of that) have to be redistributed into the RR matches to reward qualification, which is much tougher at the WTF than it is at the Slams.

And I have no idea what you're talking about when you say I said the WTF overrepresents indoor hardcourts. My point on overrepresentation was solely limited to clay vs grass and how Wimbledon overstates grass ability precisely because there is so little grass play on tour.

If you have no idea, then you spoke out of turn, because that was my counter-argument to an argument Duck made. Read through it and then come back.

 

[FrontHeadlock]

It’s not a question of how many points you win. It’s a matter of principle.

As far as qualification is concerned, I’ve already addressed the point. You don’t need a single point on clay to qualify for the French Open, and you don’t need a single point on grass to qualify for Wimbledon.

As far as the opposition is concerned, yes, you do get more points at the WTF during the first matches than you do at Grand Slam tournaments, but you also face more eligible players, on average. I’m sure you’d agree that even Thiem on Indoor Hardcourts is more of a challenge than the average 1st Round opponent for Federer at Wimbledon.

You’re right that Federer isn’t playing Thiem in the quarterfinals of Wimbledon, but he also isn’t walking away with 0 points if he loses the quarterfinal at Wimbledon. He gets 360 points. Those 360 points (or the WTF’s equivalent of that) have to be redistributed into the RR matches to reward qualification, which is much tougher at the WTF than it is at the Slams.

I'd agree Thiem on indoor hard is more of a challenge than a typical 1R opponent at Wimbledon.

Fed walks away with 0 points should he fail to beat Thiem at the WTF, but he also hasn't beaten anyone for the right to play Thiem for those 200 points --- well, he has, but he has also already received points for those wins!

Qualification to the WTF isn't anything special. It's merely just taking the people with the 8 highest point totals breh. Those 8 players have already gotten their benefit for qualifying in the form of points and cash from the tournaments they played all year.

If you have no idea, then you spoke out of turn, because that was my counter-argument to an argument Duck made. Read through it and then come back.

You said: "Just like you have twice as many points on offer on claycourts than you do on grasscourts. Maybe Rome and Madrid should be played on grasscourts now?"

I don't care what ADuck was arguing upthread. It's irrelevant to your quip.

My response essentially notes that is the wrong way to look at it. There are no grasscourt tournaments because grass is basically dead as a surface -- and that's a shame because grass is a great surface. But it's the tail wagging the dog to suggest that we have more grass tournaments because of Wimbledon. In fact, we should have Wimbledon (and historically do have Wimbledon) because there are theoretically lots of grass tournaments and lots of general grass play.

 

[Zhilady]

I'd agree Thiem on indoor hard is more of a challenge than a typical 1R opponent at Wimbledon.

Fed walks away with 0 points should he fail to beat Thiem at the WTF, but he also hasn't beaten anyone for the right to play Thiem for those 200 points --- well, he has, but he has also already received points for those wins!

Just like you already received points for winning the French Open and don’t have to beat anyone for the right to play Wimbledon. Not to mention, you can get points at Wimbledon despite not winning a single match on grass. I don’t see you complaining about that.

Qualification to the WTF isn't anything special. It's merely just taking the people with the 8 highest point totals breh. Those 8 players have already gotten their benefit for qualifying in the form of points and cash from the tournaments they played all year.

Yes, it’s not special at all to be among the top 8 in the world at what you do.

The top 32 at Grand Slam tournaments have also gotten their benefit for qualifying in the form of points and cash from the tournaments they played all year. Again, I don’t see you complaining about that. The principle is the same.

You said: "Just like you have twice as many points on offer on claycourts than you do on grasscourts. Maybe Rome and Madrid should be played on grasscourts now?"

I don't care what ADuck was arguing upthread. It's irrelevant to your quip.

My response essentially notes that is the wrong way to look at it. There are no grasscourt tournaments because grass is basically dead as a surface -- and that's a shame because grass is a great surface. But it's the tail wagging the dog to suggest that we have more grass tournaments because of Wimbledon. In fact, we should have Wimbledon (and historically do have Wimbledon) because there are theoretically lots of grass tournaments and lots of general grass play.

I don’t have to justify an argument I don’t believe in. I don’t believe grass is underrepresented or that clay is overrepresented. That was an argument by analogy. I was merely pointing out that Duck’s line of reasoning would lead you to believe that clay is overrepresented compared to grass, and I was asking if he believed that. I, personally, don’t.

 

[Tennis_Hands]

Qualification to the WTF isn't anything special. It's merely just taking the people with the 8 highest point totals breh. Those 8 players have already gotten their benefit for qualifying in the form of points and cash from the tournaments they played all year.

That same thing applies to the whole ranking system.

The players get a seeding based on their previous achievements for which they have already received ranking points/money.

If you think that the same rules should be applied consistently then you also defend the complete removal of the world rankings.

 

[ADuck]

False, because everyone has an equal chance to qualify for the WTF. You are rewarded for qualifying for the WTF by being given the chance to earn more points. If you want to make more points, qualify for the WTF. You have an equal number of tournaments to do that as anybody else.

Your line of reasoning is akin to complaining that the Grand Slam tournaments allow only the top 32 to gain more points and not someone ranked 2000.

I would say they are completely different. First of all, there's way more players, you need to take that into account and simply being in the slam isn't going to guarantee you a whole bunch of points, unlike WTF, where just one win gives 200 points, at a GS it takes at least 4 match wins IN A ROW to win at least 200 points (360 in this case). The luxury of losing your first two matches and then winning the next one isn't available in a slam or any other tournament.

Second of all, I don't complain that the Grand slam tournaments only allow the top "32" (104 + wildcards) to gain more points because there's multiple tournaments to gain points from. Put my first point aside for a moment. Imagine if there was only one clay slam or one clay master throughout the entire year? Now that is what WTF is equivalent to. Your point that the points gained from WTF are completely justified because it's the next step up from top 128 seeds or 64 seeds so to speak, which even if I concede is correct, still does not address the issue that only one tournament functions this way. Thus, creating a disparity between indoor HC players and non-indoor HC players.

The same is the case at Slams, where automatic entries are not always among the top 128 players playing at that moment and in that particular surface and that particular time. A lot of them aren’t even fit enough to finish their first round matches.

That's true, but because there are so many players, that isn't as much as an issue as it is for an 8-player tournament.

Already addressed.

Second paragraph. Multiple RR tournaments are not available for the top 8 as they are for the top 104 or whatever the number is for masters. At least the top 104 have the ability to play 4 slams on all different surfaces, the top 8 have the ability to play one indoor HC tournament at the end of the year.

Again, qualifying for the WTF means you’re already in the top 8. The top 8 in Grand Slam tournaments get even more points than the top 8 at the WTF. I’ve already given you the numbers for this.

My first numbers were incorrect. Here are the proper numbers quoted from abmk.
1200 points for each RR side (6 matches on each RR side : 200 points each) = 2*1200 = 2400
400 points for each winning SFist = 2*400 = 800
500 points for winner of final = 500

Total = 3700. This is for a total of 15 matches. (12 RR, 2 SFs, 1 final)

Slams from QF onwards is for a total of 7 matches (4 QFs, 2 SFs, 1 final) --> 3200 points.

3700>3200 points. Still 500 more points in WTF from when compared with QF onwards in a slam. And I was being generous by allowing you to use that analogy.

Why limit variance to tiers instead of considering the entire makeup of the tour? For simplicity, by considering the “big” tournaments:

Outdoor Hardcourts: 9000 points
Claycourts: 5000 points
Grasscourts: 2000 points
Indoor Hardcourts: 2500 points

As you can see, Indoor Hardcourts is far from overrepresented.

That's an entirely different argument which I can respect. But that depends what your opinion on what the tour "should" be then. By having to split up hardcourts into outdoor and indoor, you're already admitting there's too many hard courts anyway. Indoor hardcourts is the same surface as outdoor hardcourts, just in different conditions. You may as well include Shanghai within the indoor tournaments because it plays almost identical to the others. So if you ask me, yes, indoor hardcourts are overrepresented, as well as the hardcourts.

All of which also applies to Slams at the lower rung, as I’ve already explained. If WTF inflates points for the top 8, Slams inflate points for the top 32.

The tour does not inflate points in slams for the top 32 to the same degree that WTF does for the top 8 because there's multiple different slams. If there were multiple different WTF's throughout the year on different surfaces it wouldn't matter as much as stated in reply to your first quote. Also, the point system is entirely different in slams. Slams award you for multiple wins in a row, WTF does not. If you can't get to at least the QF, you're not going to gain a lot of points at all. If it was so easy to do, take Zverev, why hasn't he done it? Because the people even outside the top 32 are a threat to him. At least in slams the people outside the top 32 have a chance of challenging the top 32 for points. Zverev is top 3-4 and still hasn't reached a QF.

6600 points? Could you explain that?

To my count, there are 12 RR matches, 2 semifinals, and 1 final.

12 x 200 = 2400
2 x 400 = 800
1 x 500 = 500

Total = 3700

Where did you get 6600 from?

Either way, yes, you kind of have to give more points for the entrants of the WTF, because they’re getting 0 points for qualifying for the WTF. On the other hand, you get points for qualifying for Slams and a lot of points to be made (360) before you even get to the top 8.

6600 is incorrect. If you saw one of the posts above I admitted the mistake. I feel my other points in this post already address this. You get a measly 25 points if you go through the qualifiers, and that's 3 whole matches you have to play and you're rewarded just 25 points for making it into the main draw. If you're one of the top 104 players or are given a wildcard you get 10 points for losing in the first round, I would hardly call that inflation, but perhaps my perception if looking from a challenger tournament or lower ranked tournament would change and that could be a lot of points for them. But still, if these ARE a lot of points, they are able to be gained on multiple surfaces and conditions, unlike the WTF.

Also, your point that you get 0 points for qualifying for the WTF is only true if you also admit that you don't get any points for qualifying for a QF. A player gets 360 points for winning his 4 previous matches, just like for WTF, a player gets 6000 points for performing well in tournaments. The points you earned to qualify for the QF of a slam are the same as the points you earned to qualify for the WTF.

 

[timnz]

Just to restate. This ranking is based on the ATP points system. I did it because there is no other agreed points system. The WTF points are the WTF points. They are what they are. The Olympics used to be worth 750 points - and I used to weight it as such. I have now reduced it to zero because that is what the ATP say.

This is completely an objective system. Some of the weighting I disagree with (like the Olympics) but who am I to say what they are. It is what it is. Someone else could take up updating this system and their results would be completely the same as me doing it, because the ATP points are what the ATP are.

Now some people are surprised at the results ......but it is clear to me that, at the end of their careers Nadal and Djokovic will be clear of Lendl. Hence Federer, Nadal and Djokovic will be in the top 3 positions - which is what you would expect. At the moment though now, Lendl is ahead of the latter two on points.

 

[Tennis_Hands]

My first numbers were incorrect. Here are the proper numbers quoted from abmk.
1200 points for each RR side (6 matches on each RR side : 200 points each) = 2*1200 = 2400
400 points for each winning SFist = 2*400 = 800
500 points for winner of final = 500

Total = 3700. This is for a total of 15 matches. (12 RR, 2 SFs, 1 final)

Slams from QF onwards is for a total of 7 matches (4 QFs, 2 SFs, 1 final) --> 3200 points.

3700>3200 points. Still 500 more points in WTF from when compared with QF onwards in a slam. And I was being generous by allowing you to use that analogy.

That's an entirely different argument which I can respect. But that depends what your opinion on what the tour "should" be then. By having to split up hardcourts into outdoor and indoor, you're already admitting there's too many hard courts anyway. Indoor hardcourts is the same surface as outdoor hardcourts, just in different conditions.

Lol at the comparison between the RR stage at the WTF and a QF of a Major.

12 vs 4 matches.

Group matches vs eliminations.

Playing by definition higher ranked players vs playing lower ranked players.

And, since indoors is "just different conditions", that explains why some players have abysmal success in those.

It seems that they represent a valuable enough variety, so that they are not lumped together with every other tournament played "on the same surface".

 

[ADuck]

Lol at the comparison between the RR stage at the WTF and a QF of a Major.

12 vs 4 matches.

Group matches vs eliminations.

Playing by definition higher ranked players vs playing lower ranked players.

And, since indoors is "just different conditions", that explains why some players have abysmal success in those.

It seems that they represent a valuable enough variety, so that they are not lumped together with every other tournament played "on the same surface".

Doesn't matter that it's 12 matches vs 4 matches because the advantage in WTF IS that they play more matches. That's what needs to be put into perspective and hence why I even made the point in the first place.

 

[Tennis_Hands]

Doesn't matter that it's 12 matches vs 4 matches because the advantage in WTF IS that they play more matches.

Ahahaha.

Hilarious.

 

[timnz]

Lol at the comparison between the RR stage at the WTF and a QF of a Major.

12 vs 4 matches.

Group matches vs eliminations.

Playing by definition higher ranked players vs playing lower ranked players.

And, since indoors is "just different conditions", that explains why some players have abysmal success in those.

It seems that they represent a valuable enough variety, so that they are not lumped together with every other tournament played "on the same surface".

Sometimes I wonder, particularly with current seeding, whilst the top players have to play the first 3 or 4 rounds of a Slam.....it basically is match practice for most of them.

The WTF you have high quality opposition all the way. I think winning 3 matches in a row against top 8 opponents is more impressive than winning a 500 series event. Winning 5 top 8 players - to win the WTF - how many slams do you beat 5 top 8 players to win the slam?

 

[ADuck]

Ahahaha.

Hilarious.

No response? Okay

 

[Tennis_Hands]

Sometimes I wonder, particularly with current seeding, whilst the top players have to play the first 3 or 4 rounds of a Slam.....it basically is match practice for most of them.

The WTF you have high quality opposition all the way. I think winning 3 matches in a row against top 8 opponents is more impressive than winning a 500 series event. Winning 5 top 8 players - to win the WTF - how many slams do you beat 5 top 8 players to win the slam?

Exactly!

That is one of the unique challenges at the WTF which makes it that much different than any other tournament: to take on the creme de la creme of the tennis players (as obvious as it might be).

IMO, that is one of the reasons (the most important) why Nadal didn't win it until now.

He has difficulty overcoming several (more than two) very high quality opponents in a row outside of clay.

If I am to make a prediction, I have to say that, if he is going to win this tournament, he must play maximal two high quality players that are playing very well AND are good on the WTF surface (preferably one in the group stages and not both of them in succession in the SF and F). I can see him beating successfully Dimitrov / Del Potro SF/F for a title run there, but not for example well playing Djoko / Del Potro SF/F.

Also, at the WTF, the elite players by definition display greater variety of styles on a higher level.

For example, on a slower court on can expect that he has as an opponent a Murray SF and a Djoko final and defeat them, even if they are generally of the highest caliber opponents one can think of in the current game.

However, if the combination is even reasonably well playing big hitter or aggressive player and Djokovic one can see that he struggles much more.

 

[Tennis_Hands]

No response? Okay

The obvious fact that you compare apples to oranges and then say, "well, those are apples, so that is why a comparison with oranges is OK. In fact, I need apples for that comparison, BECAUSE they already have characteristics different from oranges, and then I proceed judging on terms that I judge oranges" is next level hilarity.

 

[ADuck]

The obvious fact that you compare apples to oranges and then say, "well, those are apples, so that is why a comparison with oranges is OK. In fact, I need apples for that comparison, BECAUSE they already have characteristics different from oranges, and then I proceed judging on terms that I judge oranges" is next level hilarity.

You forgot to do

 

[FrontHeadlock]

Sometimes I wonder, particularly with current seeding, whilst the top players have to play the first 3 or 4 rounds of a Slam.....it basically is match practice for most of them.

The WTF you have high quality opposition all the way. I think winning 3 matches in a row against top 8 opponents is more impressive than winning a 500 series event. Winning 5 top 8 players - to win the WTF - how many slams do you beat 5 top 8 players to win the slam?

You're treating "top 8" as de facto better than anyone else. That isn't remotely true, particularly when you factor in timing, surface and personal matchups.

Would a player rather face a #7 Pablo Carreno Busta or a #12 JMDP at the WTF? There are a lot of really good players in that #9-30 bucket, and part of what makes a major so difficult is that play selects for the best players of that whole 1-30 group over the course of 2 weeks.

In any event, you could easily still have to beat 3 top 8 players to win a major, whereas you really have to beat 4 to win the WTF -- not a huge distinction imo, especially given that there's no magic cutoff at #8.

 

[chut]

My first numbers were incorrect. Here are the proper numbers quoted from abmk.
1200 points for each RR side (6 matches on each RR side : 200 points each) = 2*1200 = 2400
400 points for each winning SFist = 2*400 = 800
500 points for winner of final = 500

Total = 3700. This is for a total of 15 matches. (12 RR, 2 SFs, 1 final)

Slams from QF onwards is for a total of 7 matches (4 QFs, 2 SFs, 1 final) --> 3200 points.

3700>3200 points. Still 500 more points in WTF from when compared with QF onwards in a slam. And I was being generous by allowing you to use that analogy.

You wrote a lot of .. just because you defend one of the most stupid and self deserving proposition of Nadal, but after all, everyone is entitled to have an opinion, even a terrible one.

But i really don't understand your maths. First you said WTF gives 6600 points. You got corrected, it gives a total of 3700. Now you say it's still more than 3200 points from QFs of a GS???
Slams from GF onwards give far more. 3200 is just the number of points given for the finalists (2000+1200). You also have 720*2 + 360*4 = 2880 points, for a grand total of 6080 points for the top8 of each GS. Far more than WTF. So... maybe you can't do any maths and you should try not to use that argument because it makes you look silly.

 

[ADuck]

You wrote a lot of .. just because you defend one of the most stupid and self deserving proposition of Nadal, but after all, everyone is entitled to have an opinion, even a terrible one.

But i really don't understand your maths. First you said WTF gives 6600 points. You got corrected, it gives a total of 3700. Now you say it's still more than 3200 points from QFs of a GS???
Slams from GF onwards give far more. 3200 is just the number of points given for the finalists (2000+1200). You also have 720*2 + 360*4 = 2880 points, for a grand total of 6080 points for the top8 of each GS. Far more than WTF. So... maybe you can't do any maths and you should try not to use that argument because it makes you look silly.

I made a poor mathematical error when calculating points the first time with the WTF. I've already admitted that, but the numbers for points gained for a GS QF onwards are correct I assure you. From QF to SF, 4 people gain 360 points, from SF to F 2 people gain 480 points and for winning the final one person gains 800 points. You need to read all the previous replies to understand the context of why it was calculated that way.

 

[FrontHeadlock]

You wrote a lot of .. just because you defend one of the most stupid and self deserving proposition of Nadal, but after all, everyone is entitled to have an opinion, even a terrible one.

But i really don't understand your maths. First you said WTF gives 6600 points. You got corrected, it gives a total of 3700. Now you say it's still more than 3200 points from QFs of a GS???
Slams from GF onwards give far more. 3200 is just the number of points given for the finalists (2000+1200). You also have 720*2 + 360*4 = 2880 points, for a grand total of 6080 points for the top8 of each GS. Far more than WTF. So... maybe you can't do any maths and you should try not to use that argument because it makes you look silly.

Lmao at this attempt at math

 

[King No1e]

Awesome! You must have put a whole lot of work into that. Still, Djokovic behind Nadal

 

[chut]

I made a poor mathematical error when calculating points the first time with the WTF. I've already admitted that, but the numbers for points gained for a GS QF onwards are correct I assure you. From QF to SF, 4 people gain 360 points, from SF to F 2 people gain 480 points and for winning the final one person gains 800 points. You need to read all the previous replies to understand the context of why it was calculated that way.

The reason why it was "calculated that way" is oriented towards your (dumb) argument. Players actually get to qualify themselves to QF of slams (through winning 4 matches), as they do to enter WTF (through being on of the 8 players who earned the most point during the whole year). I'll let you tell me which of the 2 feats is actually harder to do.

It's not as if you could magically make them start from 0 points from QF. You can't compare perfectly the point system for a 128 players direct elimination event that gives points according to last stage reached with a 8 players round robin system that gives points according to your wins, but your way of doing it is especially stupid imo.

 

[FrontHeadlock]

The reason why it was "calculated that way" is oriented towards your (dumb) argument. Players actually get to qualify themselves to QF of slams (through winning 4 matches), as they do to enter WTF (through being on of the 8 players who earned the most point during the whole year). I'll let you tell me which of the 2 feats is actually harder to do.

What in God's name are you talking about? Of course it's harder to be top 8 during the year than it is to win 4 matches at a single major. But in each case players are receiving those points for work done PRIOR TO the QF at the Major or the WTF RR. Thus, you should only calculate the points going forward.

 

[ADuck]

The reason why it was "calculated that way" is oriented towards your (dumb) argument.

Not true. It wasn't me who suggested that the QF of a slam is the equivalent of the WTF. I was catering towards their argument.

 

[ADuck]

Players actually get to qualify themselves to QF of slams (through winning 4 matches), as they do to enter WTF (through being on of the 8 players who earned the most point during the whole year). I'll let you tell me which of the 2 feats is actually harder to do

It's actually debateable which is more difficult/harder and that answer could differ from player to player (Zverev). But I will once again cater to this argument and assume you want me to say qualifying for WTF is harder. If we work off what I percieve to be your argument that this is what justifies the increase of average points gained per player at the WTF when compared with QF of a slam, okay. That's fine, but why are these increase of points only available on one surface then? If only one slam was available to the top 104 players to play on, and it was on clay, that would create a disparity of points gained from players who perform well on clay compared to players who do not. How do we solve this disparity? We add more slams on different surfaces of course.

 

[ADuck]

Which is why you don’t have a counter-argument, I guess. It’s okay, I’m known to have reduced people to ad hominem because they can’t refute my arguments.

I have made a counter argument to exactly this point btw.

 

[ADuck]

Honestly I'd be better if people could argue here more freely and without the fear of their own opinion being attacked simply because it's against the majority. If my opinion is so bad and logically inconsistent, then surely it'd be easy to prove me wrong in a few peaceful lines or paragraphs? Attacking the person or trying to negate their argument without actually addressing the argument itself is really just a form of ad hominem. It doesn't really help anyone. I'm okay with being proven wrong as long as it's done in a respectful manner. I realize the strong reaction against me may be due because of my initial bold post. But please realize that this is just a tennis forum and you can't take things so seriously. Ehh and I can already feel the urges of people wanting to quote this and chastise it in some way before I send...

 

[Tennis_Hands]

Honestly I'd be better if people could argue here more freely and without the fear of their own opinion being attacked simply because it's against the majority. If my opinion is so bad and logically inconsistent, then surely it'd be easy to prove me wrong in a few peaceful lines or paragraphs? Attacking the person or trying to negate their argument without actually addressing the argument itself is really just a form of ad hominem. It doesn't really help anyone. I'm okay with being proven wrong as long as it's done in a respectful manner. I realize the strong reaction against me may be due because of my initial bold post. But please realize that this is just a tennis forum and you can't take things so seriously. Ehh and I can already feel the urges of people wanting to quote this and chastise it in some way before I send...

It is enough that your opinion has been shown to be a nonsense.

Also, respectful conversation requires you to back off when proven wrong, which you somehow fail to recognise in your little flaming attempt.

It is OK, though.

Nobody with even a moderately educated opinion on the subject takes your opinion seriously.