Suggestion for reform of tennis rankings system

[travlerajm]

I agree.

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

But I wouldn’t want to penalize a player who has a knack for winning matches 0-6, 7-6, 7-6.

 

[RaulRamirez]

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

Also known as the "Truth Theorem"?

 

[RaulRamirez]

While I respect that you've put some thought into this, and that you are responsive to other opinions, I find it to be a horrible proposal.
Its two main pillars are problematic:

1. Only performances at slams count, thereby discounting the great majority of the season.
2. Looking at games won and sets won: who cares? The goal is to win matches. Period.

Let's take it a step further, and rotate which two slams to count and break ties by something even more granular than sets and games won.

 

[Bel]

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

I haven't patented it. Anyone who wants to use it is free to use it.

 

[anarosevoli]

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

It's quality versus quantity.

If your idiotic system would work there would be no points system in any sport. I gave you the most simple example (medal table) and you still don't understand.

 

[zakopinjo]

The tour needs to be reformed.

Create a 16-player Champions League, increase the elite tournaments to 16 (plus 4 slams). Bring the scoring down to the level of Formula 1, introduce a match for 3rd place, as well as for 5th-8th place.

Elite tournaments would be closed only to these 16 players, while the slams would be open to everyone.

A pro league would be played in parallel with the elite league. The top four from the pro league would go to the champions league next season.

 

[RSJfan]

I have a proposal to reform the tour too. Take the best player in the world. Let him have a three month vacation early in the season and let’s see how he does the rest of the year.

 

[MrFlip]

I have a proposal to reform the tour too. Take the best player in the world. Let him have a three month vacation early in the season and let’s see how he does the rest of the year.

LOL!

 

[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.

This system mainly considers better performance in more prestigious tournaments.

The differentials are of less importance.

 

[Bel]

Alcaraz would be ranked in the 500s then

If multiple players had their heads shaved who gets higher ranking?

 

[Bel]

I

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.

It's hard, if not impossible, to quantify such things.

 

[Bel]

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

Thats a good idea. It's better than this one.

 

[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".


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.

A player who gets into GSs AND does well in them receives a highest ranking.