Should Slams be worth more points?

[ADuck]

Yes or no?

2000 points do not correctly represent the value of a slam if you compare them to masters (1000 points) or WTF (1500 points) (yes, don't attack me). But the other argument to consider is that the points earned from tournaments should not necessarily reflect their actual value, as players arguably should have the opportunity to be able to gain points consistently across the whole season. Maybe slams are actually worth 6000-7000 points or something, but if that actually happened, it would make the rest of the ATP tournaments seem a lot more bland.

So to me, it does make some sense to undervalue the slams in terms of points. There should be a little balance. Maybe 2500-3000 points would be a good number?

 

[dapchai]

Tell this to the ATP and they will reject your suggestion in a heartbeat. That would make slams the only "big" titles (maybe with YEC and OLP). They will reconsider it once they've successfully replaced ITF as the slams organizers.

 

[NatF]

The ranking points aren't a barometer of prestige or value to legacy, they're a functional system designed to provide seeding. The problem with boosting the points for the slams is that it will help those with direct entry e.g. the top 100, stay in those positions and up and commers etc...will therefore struggle.

 

[Lleytonstation]

Haha yes big 3 forever. I like it.

 

[TearTheRoofOff]

Since slam stock has deteriorated, less points or bust.

 

[ADuck]

The ranking points aren't a barometer of prestige or value to legacy, they're a functional system designed to provide seeding. The problem with boosting the points for the slams is that it will help those with direct entry e.g. the top 100, stay in those positions and up and commers etc...will therefore struggle.

Good point.

 

[travlerajm]

Yes or no?

2000 points do not correctly represent the value of a slam if you compare them to masters (1000 points) or WTF (1500 points) (yes, don't attack me). But the other argument to consider is that the points earned from tournaments should not necessarily reflect their actual value, as players arguably should have the opportunity to be able to gain points consistently across the whole season. Maybe slams are actually worth 6000-7000 points or something, but if that actually happened, it would make the rest of the ATP tournaments seem a lot more bland.

So to me, it does make some sense to undervalue the slams in terms of points. There should be a little balance. Maybe 2500-3000 points would be a good number?

The problem is that the general public only tunes in to watch tennis during the slams.

This means that the slams become the showcase for the sport. And given this, they should really carry more weight in the rankings.

It’s really important for health of the sport to have the top-ranked players be the ones who perform the best in the showcase tournaments in front of the world. When this isn’t the case, it undermines the legitimacy of the ranking system, which in turn undermines the growth of interest in the sport.

 

[Wander]

I find 2000 points to be very reasonable and I would not advocate allocating any more points to them.

 

[Wander]

The problem is that the general public only tunes in to watch tennis during the slams.

This means that the slams become the showcase for the sport. And given this, they should really carry more weight in the rankings.

It’s really important for health of the sport to have the top-ranked players be the ones who perform the best in the showcase tournaments in front of the world. When this isn’t the case, it undermines the legitimacy of the ranking system, which in turn undermines the growth of interest in the sport.

I completely disagree. It would undermine the legitimacy of the ranking system and the ATP Tour itself to pander to "the general public". Professional tennis exists outside of the Slams whether Joe Average knows about it or not. Allocating an even larger share of the points to just 4 events would have negative consequences for the tour at large, and would further increase the difficulty of breaking into the top 100 for the lower ranked players.

Just my opinion.

 

[weakera]

Slam points should be counted as your best result over the prior two years at that slam.

 

[ADuck]

The problem is that the general public only tunes in to watch tennis during the slams.

This means that the slams become the showcase for the sport. And given this, they should really carry more weight in the rankings.

It’s really important for health of the sport to have the top-ranked players be the ones who perform the best in the showcase tournaments in front of the world. When this isn’t the case, it undermines the legitimacy of the ranking system, which in turn undermines the growth of interest in the sport.

The ranking points aren't a barometer of prestige or value to legacy, they're a functional system designed to provide seeding. The problem with boosting the points for the slams is that it will help those with direct entry e.g. the top 100, stay in those positions and up and commers etc...will therefore struggle.

Yes, I think it's about finding a balance between these two arguments. The seedings at slams should reflect who the best players at slams are, and players should be heavily rewarded for winning slams. But if it goes too far, then it could create an issue where it's too hard to break into the top 100, which over the long-term could lower the quality of slam competition?

 

[travlerajm]

I completely disagree. It would undermine the legitimacy of the ranking system and the ATP Tour itself to pander to "the general public". Professional tennis exists outside of the Slams whether Joe Average knows about it or not. Allocating an even larger share of the points to just 4 events would have negative consequences for the tour at large, and would further increase the difficulty of breaking into the top 100 for the lower ranked players.

Just my opinion.

Pandering to the general public is important for the health of the sport, because the general public is audience that pays for tickets and justifies advertising to generate TV revenues.

The reason that the Top 100 guys are millionaires while guys ranked 250 are losing money is because the general public is paying to watch the top guys.

 

[UnderratedSlam]

Men's tennis.

As it is the system works.

In the early 90s we had a really bad situation for a while when certain Big 9 events were only marginally less worth than for example AO. The points system was a sham.

What I would change is the friggin' seeding system. At FO it should be done like in Wimbledon, and there should be no more 1 vs 5 in QF, no more 1 vs 3 in semis at ANY events...

 

[ADuck]

Pandering to the general public is important for the health of the sport, because the general public is audience that pays for tickets and justifies advertising to generate TV revenues.

The reason that the Top 100 guys are millionaires while guys ranked 250 are losing money is because the general public is paying to watch the top guys.

You are right, but we must also remember that to ensure in the long-term that competition stays high, the ATP needs to support those players outside the top 100, because ultimately a selection of them will need to break through and have their turn at the top and continue the natural cycle of the younger players pushing out the older players.

 

[GabeT]

The problem is that the general public only tunes in to watch tennis during the slams.

This means that the slams become the showcase for the sport. And given this, they should really carry more weight in the rankings.

It’s really important for health of the sport to have the top-ranked players be the ones who perform the best in the showcase tournaments in front of the world. When this isn’t the case, it undermines the legitimacy of the ranking system, which in turn undermines the growth of interest in the sport.

Is this true? I think it may be true overall but not regionally. Chances are more Italians watch Rome than watch the USO, or more Americans may watch Indian Wells than watch the FO. If you want to develop tennis worldwide you need to make it interesting everywhere. If slams were worth, say, 4000 points top players may no longer play a 250 or 500. Or find more excuses to skip masters.

i think the bigger issue is why have just 8 weeks in the year become so important. The slam race is relatively new in tennis and the “slams are all that matter” as well.

 

[Connor35]

They should be worth less.

Does anyone think Emma Raducanu is really the 11th best female player?
She had 3 amazing weeks, and currently over 67% of her points are from one tournament.

That means she's getting seeds way above her actual standing.

I think the problem is fixed by lowering the points for Slams and letting slams adjust their seedings accordingly.
e.g. if Nadal isn't playing much, the French and bump him up.

Whereas ATP/WTA tournaments must follow rankings for seeds.

 

[UnderratedSlam]

Men's tennis.

No system is perfect but this one now is quite neat and good.

Federer's W03 win is far less impressive than his W12, so there's a discrepancy.

Decades ago, there were bonus points for beating highly ranked players, for example 50 points for beating no 1, 30 for beating no 10... This way his W12 would count for more. (Obviouly, now he'd get more than just 50 for beating a top 3 player.)

This bonus system makes things more precise but it made the rankings far more chaotic in terms of fans following the week to week changes.

 

[UnderratedSlam]

Women's tennis.

Definitely on the women's side slams should be closer point-wise to the M1000s because the difference between them is minimal. BO3.

Women's slams have one match more, but also a day break in-between which M1000s don't offer.

So yeah, M1000s and slams on the women's side should be only marginally different, for example M1000 winner getting 1000 points, a slam winner getting 1200 points.

 

[travlerajm]

You are right, but we must also remember that to ensure in the long-term that competition stays high, the ATP needs to support those players outside the top 100, because ultimately a selection of them will need to break through and have their turn at the top and continue the natural cycle of the younger players pushing out the older players.

The ‘too hard to break into top 100’ argument is one I hear often.

I’m not buying it. If your level is actually Top 100, it doesn’t take many matches to break into the top 100 and stay there.

As examples, look at Brooksby, who shot to the top in a few months last year. And look at Carlitos this year.

The players complaining are the ones who plateau outside the Top 100. The reason they plateau is not because of the system. It’s because their level is not high enough.

This issue is now personal to me, as I’m currently helping an atp pro try to scale the rankings by customizing his racquet. He just cracked the Top 200 (after starting the year in the 700s after 2 years on tour). If he doesn’t reach the Top 100 soon, I won’t blame the ranking system. It will just mean that I’ve got to figure out how to boost his level a bit higher.

 

[travlerajm]

Is this true? I think it may be true overall but not regionally. Chances are more Italians watch Rome than watch the USO, or more Americans may watch Indian Wells than watch the FO. If you want to develop tennis worldwide you need to make it interesting everywhere. If slams were worth, say, 4000 points top players may no longer play a 250 or 500. Or find more excuses to skip masters.

i think the bigger issue is why have just 8 weeks in the year become so important. The slam race is relatively new in tennis and the “slams are all that matter” as well.

I don’t think many Americans are watching Indian wells. They watch the slems and that’s pretty much it.

 

[UnderratedSlam]

The ‘too hard to break into top 100’ argument is one I hear often.

I’m not buying it. If your level is actually Top 100, it doesn’t take many matches to break into the top 100 and stay there.

As examples, look at Brooksby, who shot to the top in a few months last year. And look at Carlitos this year.

The players complaining are the ones who plateau outside the Top 100. The reason they plateau is not because of the system. It’s because their level is not high enough.

This issue is now personal to me, as I’m currently helping an atp pro try to scale the rankings by customizing his racquet. He just cracked the Top 200 (after starting the year in the 700s after 2 years on tour). If he doesn’t reach the Top 100 soon, I won’t blame the ranking system. It will just mean that I’ve got to figure out how to boost his level a bit higher.

Exactly, I'm tired of this pity we have for journeymen. Who cares how far up they go, they're not gonna make a difference.

If you are really good, you will defeat most of your opponents and quickly improve your ranking.

NextGen are so bad now we need to, what... hand out free MERCY POINTS? Give 'em more money they don't deserve?

Let them struggle financially AND point-wise, make 'em WORK for a living. Too many InstagramGen slackers on both tours...

 

[ADuck]

The ‘too hard to break into top 100’ argument is one I hear often.

I’m not buying it. If your level is actually Top 100, it doesn’t take many matches to break into the top 100 and stay there.

As examples, look at Brooksby, who shot to the top in a few months last year. And look at Carlitos this year.

The players complaining are the ones who plateau outside the Top 100. The reason they plateau is not because of the system. It’s because their level is not high enough.

This issue is now personal to me, as I’m currently helping an atp pro try to scale the rankings by customizing his racquet. He just cracked the Top 200 (after starting the year in the 700s after 2 years on tour). If he doesn’t reach the Top 100 soon, I won’t blame the ranking system. It will just mean that I’ve got to figure out how to boost his level a bit higher.

Yes, I agree with you in that the current landscape is fine. How much do you think the ATP can boost slam points by until this would become a problem though?

 

[Kralingen]

The issue with making Slams hyper inflated in terms of points is that they are so draw dependent.

 

[travlerajm]

Yes, I agree with you in that the current landscape is fine. How much do you think the ATP can boost slam points by until this would become a problem though?

For singles, only 64 players get points by winning a first round match. So you can boost slam points quite a bit without introducing a problem.

And it could help the qualifiers who win their way into the slam main draw.

 

[clayqueen]

Men's tennis.

As it is the system works.

In the early 90s we had a really bad situation for a while when certain Big 9 events were only marginally less worth than for example AO. The points system was a sham.

What I would change is the friggin' seeding system. At FO it should be done like in Wimbledon, and there should be no more 1 vs 5 in QF, no more 1 vs 3 in semis at ANY events...

Wimbledon doesn't use the formula anymore because even that was unfair.

 

[UnderratedSlam]

Wimbledon doesn't use the formula anymore because even that was unfair.

What's unfair is fans getting Nadal-Djokovic in the QF and Nadal-Ruud in the final.

That's unfair. For fans, and for top players.

And supremely stupid.

 

[ADuck]

For singles, only 64 players get points by winning a first round match. So you can boost slam points quite a bit without introducing a problem.

And it could help the qualifiers who win their way into the slam main draw.

Are you saying that the players outside the top 104 in the rankings (who have to win qualies) could gain a little advantage on the losers in R1?

 

[Deleted member 791948]

The ranking system isn't relevant anyway, when compared to Slams, so no need to increase the points awarded for Slams.
We've seen how most experts put Nadal ahead of Djokovic, despite Djokovic's achievements in the rankings
Slams are so powerful, they don't even need ranking points....

 

[UnderratedSlam]

Are you saying that the players outside the top 104 in the rankings (who have to win qualies) could gain a little advantage on the losers in R1?

Hang on...

Don't qualifiers get extra points when losing R1 compared to R1 losers who got into the main draw automatically?

 

[travlerajm]

Are you saying that the players outside the top 104 in the rankings (who have to win qualies) could gain a little advantage on the losers in R1?

Yes. If a player ranked 200 wins his way through qualies and wins a first round slam match, then he should deserve his Top 100 ranking.

 

[ADuck]

Men's tennis.

As it is the system works.

In the early 90s we had a really bad situation for a while when certain Big 9 events were only marginally less worth than for example AO. The points system was a sham.

What I would change is the friggin' seeding system. At FO it should be done like in Wimbledon, and there should be no more 1 vs 5 in QF, no more 1 vs 3 in semis at ANY events...

Actually I like the system because it ensures randomness. If the draws were always the same it could be bad for tennis. Remember that the number 5 player might be an easier player to face for the number 1 than the number 8 player in some circumstances due to form/matchup/surface. Rankings of players are never perfect at representing how difficult they are to beat at the current moment.

 

[ADuck]

Hang on...

Don't qualifiers get extra points when losing R1 compared to R1 losers who got into the main draw automatically?

According to wikipedia, 25 points for winning qualies, 10 points for losing in R1

 

[UnderratedSlam]

Actually I like the system because it ensures randomness. If the draws were always the same it could be bad for tennis. Remember that the number 5 player might be an easier player to face for the number 1 than the number 8 player in some circumstances due to form/matchup/surface.

So you think we should have more Nadal-Djokovic matches in the QFs...

And more Nadal-Ruud matches in finals...

Just so you can have your fun with "randomness".

A big price to pay for this toy called "randomness", don't you agree?

 

[NeutralFan]

Ask yourself will you want your favourite player to swap 3 masters with one slam? You get your answer.

 

[ADuck]

So you think we should have more Nadal-Djokovic matches in the QFs...

And more Nadal-Ruud matches in finals...

Just so you can have your fun with "randomness".

A big price to pay for this toy called "randomness", don't you agree?

I think it's an overreaction to think this is the norm.

 

[UnderratedSlam]

Ask yourself will you want your favourite player to swap 3 masters with one slam? You get your answer.

True.

If you ask Zverev if we would swap 5 of his M1000s for a slam I'm pretty sure he'd agree.

Even Djokovic might agree, despite having 20 slams. Although, that might be because he is behind in the slam race...

 

[UnderratedSlam]

I think it's an overreaction to think this is the norm.

It should never happen.

But it happened last year too, in the FO semis.

It's a joke.

 

[ADuck]

It should never happen.

But it happened last year too, in the FO semis.

It's a joke.

Maybe they should increase the slam points to reduce this problem

 

[boredone3456]

No. They are fine. The tour is a 10 month-ish thing. You give the majors any more points you will eventually relegate the rest of the tournaments into being worthless. If someone wins a major they are basically guaranteed to be in the top 20-25 (currently 2000 points would put you at 17th on the mens tour and 25th on the womens tour). Thats HUGE for one tournament. Basically you win a major and have middle results everywhere else you are top 10. I don't think the majors need to be anymore lopsided. If the idea behind this is to "correct" the rankings by ensuring the major winners are at the top, you need to be looking at the players and not the system to fix that.

 

[UnderratedSlam]

Maybe they should increase the slam points to reduce this problem

Maybe they should just stick to numbers, mathematically, instead of punishing a no 1 player by giving him NUMBERS 5 AND NUMBER 3 to play at QF and SF...

While rewarding the 8th seed for his lower ranking by gifting him the 4th ranked player in QF as opposed to playing no 1 or no 2.

I mean, duh, it's not rocket science...

 

[ADuck]

Maybe they should just stick to numbers, mathematically, instead of punishing a no 1 player by giving him NUMBERS 5 AND NUMBER 3 to play at QF and SF...

While rewarding the 8th seed for his lower ranking by gifting him the 4th ranked player as opposed to no 1 or no 2.

I mean, duh, it's not rocket science...

If rankings perfectly represent the level of the difficulty of the player, then why was Nadal seeded number 5?

The whole point is that the rankings aren't perfect, so randomness is implemented to counter this. In this case it backfired, but on average it's better than having fixed seeding.

 

[NeutralFan]

True.

If you ask Zverev if we would swap 5 of his M1000s for a slam I'm pretty sure he'd agree.

Even Djokovic might agree, despite having 20 slams. Although, that might be because he is behind in the slam race...

All the fans Claiming to be purist would happily trade 5 of Djokovic's Rome masters with FO that will make him equal to Kuerten , Fed will happily swap 5 Cincinnati for one Us open or Nadal will happily swap all his Indian Wells masters for an extra AO. Anyone who thinks it's not the case is outright lying.

 

[UnderratedSlam]

If rankings perfectly represent the level of the difficulty of the player, then why was Nadal seeded number 5?

The whole point is that the rankings aren't perfect, so randomness is implemented to counter this. In this case it backfired, but on average it's better than having fixed seeding.

1. Nobody said they were perfect. Nothing is perfect. Only Socialists believe in perfection.

2. If you take an imperfect system and further devalue it by playing 8 vs 4 and 1 vs 5 then you are saying basically "who cares about the ranking". Making the rankings even more imperfect, in a sense, needlessly...

3. Nadal and Djokovic should not have met in the QFs, even with his 5th ranking. In the 90s it was 1/2 vs 7/8, meaning that 1 vs 5 was not allowed, not possible...

 

[travlerajm]

Ask yourself will you want your favourite player to swap 3 masters with one slam? You get your answer.

I have no idea how many masters the best 10 players of the open era have won, but I can tell you how many slams each of them has won. So answer is obvious. 1 extra slam win is worth a lot more than 3 masters, and the points should reflect that.

 

[Kralingen]

I am actually OK with the rotating seeding of 1-4 vs 5-8. It helps keeps draws varied. If everything was rigid then we would see the same exact matchups play in like 7 quarter finals straight.

 

[ADuck]

1. Nobody said they were perfect. Nothing is perfect. Only Socialists believe in perfection.

2. If you take an imperfect system and further devalue it by playing 8 vs 4 and 1 vs 5 then you are saying basically "who cares about the ranking". Making the rankings even more imperfect, in a sense, needlessly...

3. Nadal and Djokovic should not have met in the QFs, even with his 5th ranking. In the 90s 1/2 vs 7/8, meaning that 1 vs 5 was not allowed, not possible...

I agree, nothing is perfect, including are current system. But it's still better than fixed seeding.

At most I'd be willing to advocate for 1 v 5/6 in QF's instead of 1 v 5/6/7/8, but I will never support 100% fixed seeding.

 

[DSH]

4000 points they should be worth, after all, they are the main events that Tennis has.

 

[BlueB]

The current weighing is perfect. At every next level points double up, with exception of YEC/WTF, which in deed fals somewhere in between a Master and Slam.
All those who whine about rankings, do not understand how the one year rolling system worked.

Tennis has far larger problems, urgent to fix, than to worry about proven point system.

 

[GabeT]

I don’t think many Americans are watching Indian wells. They watch the slems and that’s pretty much it.

when Serena was playing she’d get like 600k viewership at Indian Wells. And I know that in many countries (say in South America) interest in tennis jumps when thee is a local tourney, like the Rio or Buenos Aires open

 

[reaper]

No. They are fine. The tour is a 10 month-ish thing. You give the majors any more points you will eventually relegate the rest of the tournaments into being worthless. If someone wins a major they are basically guaranteed to be in the top 20-25 (currently 2000 points would put you at 17th on the mens tour and 25th on the womens tour). Thats HUGE for one tournament. Basically you win a major and have middle results everywhere else you are top 10. I don't think the majors need to be anymore lopsided. If the idea behind this is to "correct" the rankings by ensuring the major winners are at the top, you need to be looking at the players and not the system to fix that.

With the exception of Zverev the major winners are at the top. He's above Nadal and Djokovic temporarily because they spent extended periods off the tour. He's about to do the same and his ranking will dip as a result. On the women's side Barty's not in the top 2 for obvious reasons. The rankings particularly on the men's side have been a good reflection of performance in the majors for as long as I can remember.