Suggestion for reform of tennis rankings system

[Bel]

There is at least one defect in the current tennis rankings system:

There is a possibility of quantity (player who played more tournaments) being ranked over quality (player winning more prestigious tournaments).

In view of this, i suggest that tennis rankings be decided as follows:

1. At the top of the rankings, place the players who have won most majors (Grand Slam tournaments) in the past 12 months.

In case of tie, rank them on the basis of most GS final appearances in the last 12 months.

If they are still tied, rank them on the basis of sets difference (sets won in GS final minus sets lost).

If they are still tied, rank them on the basis of games difference (games won in GS final minus games lost).

If they are still tied, rank them on the basis of points difference (points won in GS final minus points lost).

If they are still tied, rank them on the basis of breaks difference (breaks won in GS final minus breaks conceded).

If they are stil tied, rank them on the basis of service profile difference (aces in GS final minus double faults).

2. Next come players who have reached (but not won) the final of GS tournaments. Rank them according to the most GS finals appearances. In case of tie, use sets difference and then games difference and then points difference.

3. Next come players who have only managed to reach and lost at most semifinals appearances of GS tournaments.

4. Next come players who have only managed to reach and lost at most quarterfinals appearances of GS tournaments.

5. Next come players who have only managed to reach and lost at most Round of 16 appearances of GS tournaments.

6. Next come players who have managed to reach and lost at most 3rd Round appearances of GS tournaments.

7. Next come players who have managed to reach and lost at most 2nd Round appearances of GS tournaments.

8. Next come players who have managed to reach and lost at most 1st Round appearances of GS tournaments.

9. Next in the rankings: For the remaining players (those have not even played a single GS match in the last 12 months), repeat the above steps for ATP Finals.

10. Next in the rankings: For the remaining players (those who have not played a single GS nor ATP Finals match in the last 12 months), repeat the above steps for ATP 1000 tournaments.

11. Next in the rankings: Similar to step 10, For the remaining players, repeat the above steps for ATP 500 tournaments.

12. Next in the rankings: For the remaining players, repeat the above steps for ATP 250 tournaments.

13. Next in the rankings: For the remaining players, repeat the above steps for Challenger tournaments.

14. Next in the rankings: For the remaining players, repeat the above steps for Futures tournaments.

15. Next in the rankings: For the remaining players, repeat the above steps for Satellite tournaments.

EDIT: Updated with breaks difference and service profile difference.

 

[JMR]

1. Too complicated.
2. Next, too complicated.
3. Next, too complicated.

A ranking system that incorporates set differentials and even point differentials?

 

[BlueB]

Thanks, but no thanks.

 

[Mainad]

What chiefly annoys me is players, who have done diddly squat for ages, move up the rankings just because someone else has failed to defend points from the previous year despite continuing to play and to try.

 

[Bel]

A ranking system that incorporates set differentials and even point differentials?

Only if players are tied at tournaments won.

This is nothing new. Cricket uses Net Run Rate ( Run rate for minus Run rate against) to rank teams during a tournament's early stages.
Soccer (Football) and Field hockey use Goal Difference for the same purpose.

 

[Bel]

1. Too complicated.

It's actually quite intuitive.
The tournaments are already ranked in order of importance as follows:
1.GS
2.ATP Finals
3. ATP 1000
4. ATP 500
5. ATP 250
6. Challenger
7. Futures
8. Satellite
What this ranking system does is reward the players on the basis of the importance of the tournaments they have won or played.

 

[RSJfan]

Apologies but I didn't have the time to read your modest proposal so I asked Raul's girlfriend Grok to summarize it, which returned the following:

"The proposal turns the rankings into a strict “prestige-first” pyramid: a single Grand Slam title would outweigh any number of smaller tournament wins. A player who wins one major would rank above someone who won ten Masters 1000s but didn’t win a Slam, and far above someone who just grinds out points in 250-level events. It completely eliminates the current race/points system in favor of a meritocracy weighted almost entirely toward deep runs (especially titles) in the most important tournaments."

I suggest you slightly reword and then resubmit Grok's summary as your own idea.

Thank you for your interest in improving tennis!

 

[4UTRMoutet]

We should have three different rankings. 1st and 2nd for Sincaraz, MUG ranking for the rest.

 

[Bel]

Apologies but I didn't have the time to read your modest proposal so I asked Raul's girlfriend Grok to summarize it, which returned the following:

"The proposal turns the rankings into a strict “prestige-first” pyramid: a single Grand Slam title would outweigh any number of smaller tournament wins. A player who wins one major would rank above someone who won ten Masters 1000s but didn’t win a Slam, and far above someone who just grinds out points in 250-level events. It completely eliminates the current race/points system in favor of a meritocracy weighted almost entirely toward deep runs (especially titles) in the most important tournaments."

I suggest you slightly reword and then resubmit Grok's summary as your own idea.

Thank you for your interest in improving tennis!

Yes, Grok has summarized it nicely.

 

[RSJfan]

We should have three different rankings. 1st and 2nd for Sincaraz, MUG ranking for the rest.

Emeritus #3 rank for Egg.

 

[Spielgame]

We should have three different rankings. 1st and 2nd for Sincaraz, MUG ranking for the rest.

Sorry but this year Alcaraz was a mug in Paris Masters, Barcelona, Qatar, Indian Wells, Wimbledon, Miami, and AO, while Sinner was a mug in Shanghai Masters, Halle, Rome, FO, Cinci and USO.

 

[darthrafa]

if u r good enough, u can beat anyone with or without seeding
unlike soccer tournments, u need not seeding to avoid particular team to win more matches
esp that in this shxt era, just play it

 

[Bel]

B

1. Too complicated.
2. Next, too complicated.
3. Next, too complicated.

A ranking system that incorporates set differentials and even point differentials?

By incorporating set and point differentials the system is more exact.

Edit: Set and games and points and break and service differentials are considered only to break a tie between two players.

 

[Bel]

Top 20 as of Nov 2025 for men as per this prestige system:
1. Jannik Sinner (2 GS titles, 2 GS F)
2. Carlos Alcaraz (2 GS titles, 1 GS F)
3. Alexander Zverev (1 GS F)
4. Novak Djokovic (4 GS SF)
5. T. Fritz (1 GS SF; SD -2; GD -4)
6. Auger-Aliassime (1 GS SF; SD -2; GD -7; PD -20)
7. Musetti (1 GS SF; SD -2; GD -7;PD -25)
8. Ben Shelton (1 GS SF; SD -3)
9. de Minaur (2 GS QF; SD -5; GD -14)
10. Tommy Paul (2 GS QF; SD -5; GD -16)
11. Karen Kachanov (1 GS QF; SD -2; GD -1)
12. Sonego (1 GS QF; SD -2; GD -3)
13. Cobolli (1 GS QF; SD -2; GD -7)
14. Tiafoe (1 GS QF; SD -2; GD -8)
15. Lehecka (1 GS QF; SD -3; GD -4)
16. Norrie (1 GS QF; SD -3 ; GD -10)
17. Bublik (1 GS QF; SD -3; GD -13)
18. Rublev (3 GS R16)
19. Rune (2 GS R16; SD -4; GD -13)
20. Draper (2 GS R16; SD -4; GD -14).

(SD is set difference (sets won minus sets lost))
(GD is game difference (games won minus games lost))
(PD is points difference (points won minus points lost))

 

[anarosevoli]

Top 20 as of Nov 2025 for men as per this prestige system:
1. Jannik Sinner (2 GS titles, 2 GS F)
2. Carlos Alcaraz (2 GS titles, 1 GS F)
3. Alexander Zverev (1 GS F)
4. Novak Djokovic (4 GS SF)
5. T. Fritz (1 GS SF; SD -2; GD -4)
6. Auger-Aliassime (1 GS SF; SD -2; GD -7; PD -20)
7. Musetti (1 GS SF; SD -2; GD -7;PD -25)
8. Ben Shelton (1 GS SF; SD -3)
9. de Minaur (2 GS QF; SD -5; GD -14)
10. Tommy Paul (2 GS QF; SD -5; GD -16)
11. Karen Kachanov (1 GS QF; SD -2; GD -1)
12. Sonego (1 GS QF; SD -2; GD -3)
13. Cobolli (1 GS QF; SD -2; GD -7)
14. Tiafoe (1 GS QF; SD -2; GD -8)
15. Lehecka (1 GS QF; SD -3; GD -4)
16. Norrie (1 GS QF; SD -3 ; GD -10)
17. Bublik (1 GS QF; SD -3; GD -13)
18. Rublev (3 GS R16)
19. Rune (2 GS R16; SD -4; GD -13)
20. Draper (2 GS R16; SD -4; GD -14).

(SD is set difference (sets won minus sets lost))
(GD is game difference (games won minus games lost))
(PD is points difference (points won minus points lost))

Your whole system is the most basic MTC error. MTC = medal table catastrophe (1 gold = more than any number of silver).
And after the catastrophe you want to count games and even points to make it more fair lol. I could cry if you weren't that funny.
A lot of intelligent people invented the official ranking. They also knew that such simple childish radical ideas exist, and there are many reasons they decided against it.

 

[Bel]

If ATP and WTA tournaments lasted as long as GSs (as many rounds including qualification rounds) and had as many participants then their results could be reckoned alongside GS tournaments.

 

[Bel]

Your whole system is the most basic MTC error. MTC = medal table catastrophe (1 gold = more than any number of silver).
And after the catastrophe you want to count games and even points to make it more fair lol. I could cry if you weren't that funny.
A lot of intelligent people invented the official ranking. They also knew that such simple childish radical ideas exist, and there are many reasons they decided against it.

I don't see anything wrong with MTC. It seems a reasonable though imperfect means of distinguishing between wins and defeats.

 

[Bel]

Your whole system is the most basic MTC error. MTC = medal table catastrophe (1 gold = more than any number of silver).
And after the catastrophe you want to count games and even points to make it more fair lol. I could cry if you weren't that funny.
A lot of intelligent people invented the official ranking. They also knew that such simple childish radical ideas exist, and there are many reasons they decided against it.

Counting sets, games and points makes the system more exact .

 

[GrassCourtFan]

There is a possibility of quantity (player who played more tournaments) being ranked over quality (player winning more prestigious tournaments).

This is not a defect. A major purpose of the ranking system is to serve as an incentive - it needs to encourage (or even force) the top players to play lots of tournaments, instead of letting them skip most of the season and just play the "big ones".

In view of this, i suggest that tennis rankings be decided as follows:

1. At the top of the rankings, place the players who have won most majors (Grand Slam tournaments) in the past 12 months.

In case of tie, rank them on the basis of most GS final appearances in the last 12 months.

If they are still tied, rank them on the basis of sets difference (sets won in GS final minus sets lost).

If they are still tied, rank them on the basis of games difference (games won in GS final minus games lost).

If they are still tied, rank them on the basis of points difference (points won in GS final minus points lost).

2. Next come players who have reached (but not won) the final of GS tournaments. Rank them according to the most GS finals appearances. In case of tie, use sets difference and then games difference and then points difference.

3. Next come players who have only managed to reach and lost at most semifinals appearances of GS tournaments.

4. Next come players who have only managed to reach and lost at most quarterfinals appearances of GS tournaments.

5. Next come players who have only managed to reach and lost at most Round of 16 appearances of GS tournaments.

6. Next come players who have managed to reach and lost at most 3rd Round appearances of GS tournaments.

7. Next come players who have managed to reach and lost at most 2nd Round appearances of GS tournaments.

8. Next come players who have managed to reach and lost at most 1st Round appearances of GS tournaments.

9. Next in the rankings: For the remaining players (those have not even played a single GS match in the last 12 months), repeat the above steps for ATP Finals.

10. Next in the rankings: For the remaining players (those who have not played a single GS nor ATP Finals match in the last 12 months), repeat the above steps for ATP 1000 tournaments.

11. Next in the rankings: Similar to step 10, For the remaining players, repeat the above steps for ATP 500 tournaments.

12. Next in the rankings: For the remaining players, repeat the above steps for ATP 250 tournaments.

13. Next in the rankings: For the remaining players, repeat the above steps for Challenger tournaments.

14. Next in the rankings: For the remaining players, repeat the above steps for Futures tournaments.

15. Next in the rankings: For the remaining players, repeat the above steps for Satellite tournaments.

This setup means that players who get in to Grand Slams get to ignore everything that's not a Grand Slam. Why would the ATP - an organization, by the way, that doesn't run the Slams - encourage this?

...and it means that anybody who gets a wildcard to one Slam automatically leaprfrogs everybody else who is trying to grind their way up through challengers, regardless of whether they win that match or not.

...and it means that just by getting direct entry into the Grand Slams, that alone puts a player above all the players who don't qualify - basically a situation where you can NEVER drop out of that group once you make it in. And vice versa, there could be players that are dominating challengers and even 250s... ...and never get direct entry into Grand Slams, because they're ranked below all of the people who already have direct entry into Grand Slams and have no way of making up that difference.

 

[JMR]

This setup means that players who get in to Grand Slams get to ignore everything that's not a Grand Slam. Why would the ATP - an organization, by the way, that doesn't run the Slams - encourage this?

Exactly. It's a hopeless proposal. The ATP will never implement an ATP ranking system that declares, "It's better just to squeak into the second round of a slam than to win any of our ATP events!"

 

[langley]

i say seed the players with the best hair at the top

 

[anarosevoli]

Counting sets, games and points makes the system more exact .

The system considers only the peaks, nothing else. To ignore 95% and then introduce sets, points and games for the remaining 5% that are being considered is absolutely ridiculous.

It's like measuring the temperature every day, ignoring all but the highest monthly value but giving this with 8 decimal places and trying to prove somthing about climate with this ********.

The reason we have a points system is because your idea doesn't work.

 

[RSJfan]

I think it’s a good proposal if you want to destroy the tennis tours. The majors have been steadily swallowing pro tennis anyway so this very modest proposal will simply accelerate the process.

 

[Bel]

This is not a defect. A major purpose of the ranking system is to serve as an incentive - it needs to encourage (or even force) the top players to play lots of tournaments, instead of letting them skip most of the season and just play the "big ones".

Players will naturally want to make more money so they will play other tournaments besides GSs.

This setup means that players who get in to Grand Slams get to ignore everything that's not a Grand Slam. Why would the ATP - an organization, by the way, that doesn't run the Slams - encourage this?

I dont have anything against ATP/WTA. They need to maintain a high public profile too and they provide useful employment to many.

...and it means that anybody who gets a wildcard to one Slam automatically leaprfrogs everybody else who is trying to grind their way up through challengers, regardless of whether they win that match or not.

Someone who gains entry to GS would be a better player than one stuck in challengers.

...and it means that just by getting direct entry into the Grand Slams, that alone puts a player above all the players who don't qualify - basically a situation where you can NEVER drop out of that group once you make it in.

The ranking system would have to be rolling 52-week system so that players could drop out of or rise up into higher tier tournaments.

And vice versa, there could be players that are dominating challengers and even 250s... ...and never get direct entry into Grand Slams, because they're ranked below all of the people who already have direct entry into Grand Slams and have no way of making up that ddifference.

Organizers of all tournaments would need to allow winners at lower tier tournaments, entry into their tournaments.

 

[ChrisRF]

No, it's actually good that the best player at the Slams isn't automatically #1. Because if it would be so, the other tournaments would lose ANY value.

The importance of the Slams is shown in the rankings by being far above all other tournaments in points. If a dominant player at the Slams still won't be #1, he isn't consistent enough over the whole season, as simple as that.

 

[Bel]

No, it's actually good that the best player at the Slams isn't automatically #1. Because if it would be so, the other tournaments would lose ANY value.

People will watch non-GS tournaments no matter what because slams only last 8 weeks a year. There is plenty of viewership and advertising money out there outside of slams.

The importance of the Slams is shown in the rankings by being far above all other tournaments in points.

True.

If a dominant player at the Slams still won't be #1, he isn't consistent enough over the whole season, as simple as that.

I look at it differently: the way i see it, its necessary to reward talent also, not just grinding out mediocre match after match.

 

[junkieballer]

Gaudio would be #2 in 2004?

 

[Breakpointerer]

i say seed the players with the best hair at the top

Alcaraz would be ranked in the 500s then

 

[ChrisRF]

I look at it differently: the way i see it, its necessary to reward talent also, not just grinding out mediocre match after match.

This is guaranteed by limiting the counting "other tournaments" category besides Slams and Masters to "Best 6 per 52 Weeks". So getting all possible points in the "others" category is roughly equivalent to just one Slam.

So a player like for example Davydenko back then could literally win a 250 every week, and still he wouldn't have been close to #1.

 

[roysid]

There is at least one defect in the current tennis rankings system:

There is a possibility of quantity (player who played more tournaments) being ranked over quality (player winning more prestigious tournaments).

In view of this, i suggest that tennis rankings be decided as follows:

1. At the top of the rankings, place the players who have won most majors (Grand Slam tournaments) in the past 12 months.

In case of tie, rank them on the basis of most GS final appearances in the last 12 months.

If they are still tied, rank them on the basis of sets difference (sets won in GS final minus sets lost).

If they are still tied, rank them on the basis of games difference (games won in GS final minus games lost).

If they are still tied, rank them on the basis of points difference (points won in GS final minus points lost).

2. Next come players who have reached (but not won) the final of GS tournaments. Rank them according to the most GS finals appearances. In case of tie, use sets difference and then games difference and then points difference.

3. Next come players who have only managed to reach and lost at most semifinals appearances of GS tournaments.

4. Next come players who have only managed to reach and lost at most quarterfinals appearances of GS tournaments.

5. Next come players who have only managed to reach and lost at most Round of 16 appearances of GS tournaments.

6. Next come players who have managed to reach and lost at most 3rd Round appearances of GS tournaments.

7. Next come players who have managed to reach and lost at most 2nd Round appearances of GS tournaments.

8. Next come players who have managed to reach and lost at most 1st Round appearances of GS tournaments.

9. Next in the rankings: For the remaining players (those have not even played a single GS match in the last 12 months), repeat the above steps for ATP Finals.

10. Next in the rankings: For the remaining players (those who have not played a single GS nor ATP Finals match in the last 12 months), repeat the above steps for ATP 1000 tournaments.

11. Next in the rankings: Similar to step 10, For the remaining players, repeat the above steps for ATP 500 tournaments.

12. Next in the rankings: For the remaining players, repeat the above steps for ATP 250 tournaments.

13. Next in the rankings: For the remaining players, repeat the above steps for Challenger tournaments.

14. Next in the rankings: For the remaining players, repeat the above steps for Futures tournaments.

15. Next in the rankings: For the remaining players, repeat the above steps for Satellite tournaments.

There is no perfect ranking system. There will be always be some exploit depending on some situations. Having said all that, the current ranking system is as best as it can get.
Are you aware that other than Grand slam, mandatory 8 masters and finals, only 7 other tournament points are added.
So a player cannot play 30 tournaments and jump in ranking.

Are you aware that ranking system is done by ATP, not ITF who manages grand slams. Rest all are managed by atp
So as per your system, if slams get everything, what importance do atp tournaments have.

Final question..were you serious when you created ur system or just wanted to have fun.

 

[Bel]

Gaudio would be #2 in 2004?

With a 52-week rolling system:

1. On winning 2004 FO,
Gaudio would become #3.
Roddick would still be #2 with his 1 GS (2003 US Open). (Roddick beats Gaudio on set difference, having won his final in straight sets while Gaudio needed 5 sets).

Federer would be #1 with his 2 GS (2003 W, 2004 AO).

2. After 2004 US Open, Federer would remain #1 but with 3 GS. Then Gaudio would become #2 with his 1 GS.

 

[Bel]

There is no perfect ranking system.

Yes.

There will be always be some exploit depending on some situations. Having said all that, the current ranking system is as best as it can get.

That's arguable.

Are you aware that other than Grand slam, mandatory 8 masters and finals, only 7 other tournament points are added.
So a player cannot play 30 tournaments and jump in ranking.

True.

Are you aware that ranking system is done by ATP, not ITF who manages grand slams. Rest all are managed by atp
So as per your system, if slams get everything, what importance do atp tournaments have.

I don't have anything against ATP. They do some good work. And players who do well in ATP naturally get an entry into slams.

Final question..were you serious when you created ur system or just wanted to have fun.

 

[junkieballer]

With a 52-week rolling system:

1. On winning 2004 FO,
Gaudio would become #3.
Roddick would still be #2 with his 1 GS (2003 US Open). (Roddick beats Gaudio on set difference, having won his final in straight sets while Gaudio needed 5 sets).

Federer would be #1 with his 2 GS (2003 W, 2004 AO).

2. After 2004 US Open, Federer would remain #1 but with 3 GS. Then Gaudio would become #2 with his 1 GS.

This system is terribile then

Gaudio was never the second best player in the world

 

[tsp_207]

This is way more complicated than what the system currently exists as lol.

 

[GrassCourtFan]

Someone who gains entry to GS would be a better player than one stuck in challengers.

Someone can "gain entry" to GS by wildcard.

In this system, a 16-year old that wins kalamazoo - a US junior tournament - and thus gets a wildcard into the US open (because the US open gives wildcards to US juniors like that) would be higher ranked than anybody who wins any number of challengers, or even 250s, or even masters (if they don't get direct entry to Slams).

It also means that the four Grand Slams can put any player they want directly into the top 100 by reciprocal wildcards. They already do this - the grand slams exchange wildcards, so that the US open gives a wildcard to a promising French player if the French Open gives wildcard to a promising US player.

Organizers of all tournaments would need to allow winners at lower tier tournaments, entry into their tournaments.

Oh, if only there was a system to do this. Like, maybe someone should rank all the players based on how they do in lower-tier tournaments - such as by giving those tournaments points and seeing who wins them - and then use that to decide who gets entry into higher-tier tournaments!

 

[RSJfan]

Someone can "gain entry" to GS by wildcard.

In this system, a 16-year old that wins kalamazoo - a US junior tournament - and thus gets a wildcard into the US open (because the US open gives wildcards to US juniors like that) would be higher ranked than anybody who wins any number of challengers, or even 250s, or even masters (if they don't get direct entry to Slams)…

It almost sounds like you think this is a negative. Billy Ackman could potentially buy himself a WC from the USTA and with it a top 100 ranking. Ackman is Dr Raul’s 2nd fav billionaire so I’d say it’s a win all around.

 

[Bel]

This system is terribile then

Gaudio was never the second best player in the world

Gaudio may not be the second best player but he arguably turned in the second best performance among players for a time for various reasons.

No system is perfect.

 

[Bel]

This is way more complicated than what the system currently exists as lol.

And even this system isn't complex enough to satisfy everyone's expectations from a ranking system.

 

[Bel]

Organizers of higher tier tournaments (including GS) need to allow players successful in lower tier tournaments, including ATP, entry into the GSs, whether through qualifying or in the main draw or through wild card.

 

[MrFlip]

m8, nice try. I already have the most annoying thread on here, posting whenever some top ten schmuck loses to Vacherot. How about making a system where players get penalised for big losses to players ranked X amount of spot below them

 

[MrFlip]

......to stop the likes of Tiafoes from being in top 20 for the whole year.....what a joke that is, absolute farce to the ATP....as if Bublik losing every month to some challenger wasnt enough

 

[Sudacafan]

The proposal is far too simplistic.
Apparently, we’re supposed to ignore derivatives, integrals, and vector matrices altogether.

 

[Bel]

Top 20 as of Nov 2025 for women as per this prestige system:

1. Sabalenka (1 GS title, 2 GS F)
2. Swiatek (1 GS title, SD:2)
3. Gauff (1 GS title, SD:1; GD:5)
4. Keys (1 GS title, SD:1; GD:1)
5. Anisimova (2 GS F)
6. Pegula (2 GS SF; SD -1; GD -3; PD -2)
7. Osaka (1 GS SF; SD -1; GD -3; PD -10)
8. Badosa (1 GS SF; SD -2; GD -6)
9. Boisson (1 GS SF; SD -2; GD -9)
10. Bencic (1 GS SF; SD -2; GD -10)
11. Svitolina (2 GS QF; SD -3; GD -9; PD -14)
12. Pavlyuchenkova (2 GS QF; SD -3; GD -9; PD -25)
13. Andreeva (2 GS QF; SD -4)
14. Siegemund (1 GS QF; SD -1)
15. Muchova (1 GS QF; SD -2; GD -3)
16. Qinwen Zheng (1 GS QF; SD -2; GD -4)
17. Samsonova (1 GS QF; SD -2; GD -6; PD -16)
18. Krejcikova (1 GS QF; SD -2; GD -6; PD -18)
19. Navarro (1 GS QF; SD -2; GD -9)
20. Vondrousova (1 GS QF; walkover).

(SD is set difference (sets won minus sets lost))
(GD is game difference (games won minus games lost))
(PD is points difference (points won minus points lost))

 

[Bel]

Gaudio would be #2 in 2004?

Yes.

 

[Bel]

The system considers only the peaks, nothing else. To ignore 95% and then introduce sets, points and games for the remaining 5% that are being considered is absolutely ridiculous.

It's like measuring the temperature every day, ignoring all but the highest monthly value but giving this with 8 decimal places and trying to prove somthing about climate with this ********.

No, sets, games and points needn't be counted. They're counted only in case of a tie.

The reason we have a points system is because your idea doesn't work.

It's quality versus quantity.

 

[Bel]

Exactly. It's a hopeless proposal. The ATP will never implement an ATP ranking system that declares, "It's better just to squeak into the second round of a slam than to win any of our ATP events!"

Why would any player restrict themselves to GS when there is money to be made in playing other tournaments?

 

[Bel]

This is not a defect. A major purpose of the ranking system is to serve as an incentive - it needs to encourage (or even force) the top players to play lots of tournaments, instead of letting them skip most of the season and just play the "big ones".

Players are not going to play just the big ones because, let's face it, if you're a tennis professional, what else would you do the rest of the time when there's money to be made?

This setup means that players who get in to Grand Slams get to ignore everything that's not a Grand Slam. Why would the ATP - an organization, by the way, that doesn't run the Slams - encourage this?

The ATP will still be making money.

...and it means that anybody who gets a wildcard to one Slam automatically leaprfrogs everybody else who is trying to grind their way up through challengers, regardless of whether they win that match or not.

Doesn't that make sense - after all there is a difference in the prestige of a GS and s Challenger.

...and it means that just by getting direct entry into the Grand Slams, that alone puts a player above all the players who don't qualify - basically a situation where you can NEVER drop out of that group once you make it in. And vice versa, there could be players that are dominating challengers and even 250s... ...and never get direct entry into Grand Slams, because they're ranked below all of the people who already have direct entry into Grand Slams and have no way of making up that difference.

It is largely in the hands of the organizers of higher tier tournaments to ensure the rise of talented and hardworking players from lower tiers.

Even under this system, players who don't perform will find themselves sliding because other players who perform better will displace them.

 

[travlerajm]

B

By incorporating set and point differentials the system is more exact.

While set and point differentials often are predictive, it’s not always the case.

Tennis match winning is a measure of who is good at winning the last point, more than it is a measure of who is good at winning the most points.

These are two different things. Some players are great at dominating for a set and a half, but then level drifts downward before the finish line. Others have slow starts but progressively drift upward.

 

[vive le beau jeu !]

The proposal is far too simplistic.
Apparently, we’re supposed to ignore derivatives, integrals, and vector matrices altogether.

it doesn't even involve the Sudacafanovic-Vivestein-Möbius theorem

 

[Bel]

While set and point differentials often are predictive, it’s not always the case.

Tennis match winning is a measure of who is good at winning the last point, more than it is a measure of who is good at winning the most points.

These are two different things. Some players are great at dominating for a set and a half, but then level drifts downward before the finish line. Others have slow starts but progressively drift upward.

I agree.

As per this ranking, differentials do not come into picture unless there is a tie between two players.