If they were to draw by ranking it wouldn't be 8vs4, 1vs5 etc. It would be 1vs8, 2vs7, 3vs6, 4vs5. The 5th ranked player is protected relative to the 8th ranked, and #1 is protected relative to #4.
Should Slams be worth more points?
- Thread starter ADuck
- Start date
If they were to draw by ranking it wouldn't be 8vs4, 1vs5 etc. It would be 1vs8, 2vs7, 3vs6, 4vs5. The 5th ranked player is protected relative to the 8th ranked, and #1 is protected relative to #4.
UnderratedSlam
G.O.A.T.
So why would a player then fight to improve his ranking from let's say 7 to 5?
Being 7th or 8th means he is more likely to avoid the no 1 player.
UnderratedSlam
G.O.A.T.
In the 90s 1/2 could get 7/8, just as in R4 they could get 15 or 16.
Now this is different, allowing for all sorts of random nonsense...
I'm not quite sure what you're saying there. As things stand the top seed can be drawn to play anyone ranked 5-8 in the 1/4 finals.
UnderratedSlam
G.O.A.T.
That wasn't the case in the 90s.
The top seed could only get 7/8 in QFs, and 15/16 in R4 of a slam.
To me that was the best system. It rewards a higher ranking ACCURATELY (and punishes a lower ranking), rather than IGNORE the rankings just so a few fans can get boners when a draw comes out...
T
TheNachoMan
Guest
All masters = 9000 points
All slams = 8000 points
You could theoretically win CYGS and still not be #1. lol
All slams = 8000 points
You could theoretically win CYGS and still not be #1. lol
Russeljones
Talk Tennis Guru
Fewer. Lot of time to recover, rigged draws, rigged shot clocks.
I agree with you in theory, but in practice it has made little difference. The top players of the last 20 years didn't need the extra protection the old system offered judging by the very narrow concentration of slam winners on the men's side.
I think 2000 points for a Major is fine, however…
There should be bonus points for winning multiple Slams in a Calender year, or perhaps for consecutive slams
Example:
Winning 2 Slams in a year gets you an additional 500 points
Winning 3 Slams in a year gets you an additional 1000 points
Winning 4 Slams in a year gets you an additional 1500 points
That rewards cumulative consistency in the 4 Major tourneys of the year.
There should be bonus points for winning multiple Slams in a Calender year, or perhaps for consecutive slams
Example:
Winning 2 Slams in a year gets you an additional 500 points
Winning 3 Slams in a year gets you an additional 1000 points
Winning 4 Slams in a year gets you an additional 1500 points
That rewards cumulative consistency in the 4 Major tourneys of the year.
To grow the sport ATP needs to create more tournaments equal to slams. Maybe increase points of masters to 2000 etc, increase the prize money. You can't popularize a sport beyond a point with only 4 tournaments. If there are viewers through out the year for watching tennis, they need through out the year big tournaments. Thats how you run a successful business too. Thank me later.
travlerajm
Talk Tennis Guru
But the slams are the gateway drug. If the slams become more popular, then there would be a trickle down effect. You have to start with strength at the top.
The Fedfather
Legend
Winning Masters and the WTF is not THAT much easier than winning Slams. The gap in points is just right now.
If people are waiting for the tournament to happen, they might as well would have seen a bigger tournament in the meanwhile. That would have meant more eyeballs and more revenue. Currently the problem is of less supply of good tennis v/s more demand.
It's a good problem to have and solve in business terms. Just increase the supply, in this case of good tournaments. Introduce new slams or upgrade a few masters to slams and introduce new masters. Will create better economics for players as well, and help the spectators too!
Way to go is more number of slams or bigger tournaments round the year or a tennis league which keeps going.
Football has adapted this league system brilliantly and there is no shortage of good matches around the year and look where football's economy is.
l0s3
Rookie
Dimitrov zverev tsitsipas would disagree with you. BO5 format is what makes it difficult
GabeT
G.O.A.T.
But that would be against someone who had won all 9 masters in the same year. That’s even more difficult than winning the CYGS
The Fedfather
Legend
A few outliers. And it's not even like Tsitsipas or Dimitrov have many Masters or WTFs. Zverev is a special case.
For sure, winning Masters or WTF isn't as difficult as Slams, but it isn't a walk in the park in comparison either.
GabeT
G.O.A.T.
Is winning 2 masters more or less difficult than winning 1 slam? Let’s assume all the top players are playing (peak Big 4 era?)
socallefty
G.O.A.T.
I think the current system is fine except the WTF is over-rated and should have only 1,000 points. I could support the Slam winner getting 2,500 points as long as the points for other rounds (Final, SF, QF etc.) in Slams remains the same as it is now. This would increase the importance of the Slam in the rankings for only the title winner and not for the other players.
sometennisdot
Professional
No, the masters should be made more prestigious. I hardly see much care for any non GS without a Big 3 these days.
The Fedfather
Legend
For the Big 4 there's a lesser chance of upset in a Slam. Others are screwed both ways.
wangs78
Legend
2000 points is about right. What I would change to points allocation would be to the Masters tournaments - ie, to award some of them 1250 points. These should be Rome, Cincy, and Indian Wells, imo. Keep the rest at 1000, although a case can also be made to further differentiate the remaining group into 1000s vs 750s. Paris and Shanghai could potentially be 750 although if you do that, even fewer top players will play them at the tail end of the season. Canada should also be 750 if you ask me. I also don't think both Monte Carlo and Madrid should be 1000. Make MC a 1000 and Madrid a 750. Also, for the 1250 events, make the final be best of 5 sets.
travlerajm
Talk Tennis Guru
Taylor Fritz ain’t winning a slam anytime soon.
DamosTennisGear
New User
The ATP needs a permanent working system not temporary solutions!!
ADuck
Legend
LOL, my bad I meant 1 vs 7/8 instead of 1 v 5/6/7/8
Fiero425
Legend
Normally I'd agree, but we've had instances where it just wasn't enough to separate the elite players from the "also-rans!" I just didn't think it right that back in 2016, Novak defended his AO, won his 1st FO, made the final of the USO & YEC, and took 4 Masters! Somehow by Murray playing a number of 500's and stole the YEC Final, overtaking Novak as #1 by that one match! Andy held the #1 ranking over the "dead period" over the Winter which kept Novak from putting the weeks at #1 out of reach and well over 400 weeks by now! Novak's 2015 ends up being the problem as it's hard to defend an almost perfect season of winning 3 majors, 6 Masters (making 8 finals), & the YEC! There's no place else to go but down!
Last edited:
Subway Tennis
Legend
I would argue the value of majors relative to m1000 and atp250 and atp500 tournaments is about right, but the ATP Finals event currently feels overvalued in terms of points imo.
Its still a big event, and the threshold for entry is the highest on the ATP tour, but its status and match requirements have objectively declined in the last decade to the extent that the requirements to win it now seem lower than a m1000 provided you are in that exalted top 8.
The points ranking for that event feels less like a true indication of the tournament's status than life support from the ATP to keep its showcase event afloat.
Its still a big event, and the threshold for entry is the highest on the ATP tour, but its status and match requirements have objectively declined in the last decade to the extent that the requirements to win it now seem lower than a m1000 provided you are in that exalted top 8.
The points ranking for that event feels less like a true indication of the tournament's status than life support from the ATP to keep its showcase event afloat.
ADuck
Legend
I've argued that the WTF is inflated in terms of points given before. Lots of points are given even if you don't end up winning the thing. I would put it more around 1200-1300.
Subway Tennis
Legend
Agree. A crapload of points come from the round robin stages. I guess its a way of trying to encourage people not to tank the RR matches?
The whole thing is in need of an overhaul imo. At least make the finals like they were in the 2000s.
ADuck
Legend
My suggestion is increase the field size. Limiting the field to the top 8 doesn't increase its strength imo.
The whole issue originates from Nadal winning two slams in 2022 while Medvedev and Zverev becoming no.1 and 2. That’s the only reason it is being discussed now. Nobody will be talking about it in any different scenario. So the real question should be: do players who only play slams (slam specialists) get to be higher in the rankings than players who play all tournaments. The purpose of this of course is to give Nadal and Djokovic permanent no.1 and 2 status. This way of thinking is truly disgusting in my opinion. Taylor made ranking system for Nadal and Djokovic. And asking this with a straight face too. Shameful.
Subway Tennis
Legend
Fair. Maybe add a few "jokers in the pack" the streaky players who always match well against the big dogs ala Kyrgios and co
UnderratedSlam
G.O.A.T.
It's not just about protection, it's about getting the best possible semis and finals.
1 shouldn't be playing no 5 in QF, nor should he be playing no 3 in semis, period.
