[5tatRacket]

Follows are the ranking points given for the different finishes in a Grand Slam:

W  2000
F  1400
S  900
Q  500
R4 280
R3 160
R2 100
R1 5

From this it can be easily calculated how many points a player earns for winning each individual round:

F  600
S  500
Q  400
R4 220
R3 120
R2 60
R1 95

Why are more points awarded for a 1st round win than a 2nd round win? It obviously becomes more difficult to win matches the further one progresses in an event. This is reflected at every stage of the point distribution aside from round 2. The same anomaly seems to exist in a lot of WTA events.

[faboozadoo15]

It really is strange and stupid. Luck of the draw can get an unseeded player 95 points, which is half the worth of an international title.

Winning in the second round for an unseeded player usually means they upset a seeded player, and they win fewer points.

[Wannabeknowitall]

I don't see an issue with it. Let's look a little in depth at the top 20. There are four players in the top 20, would didn't make the quarterfinals of a slam this year. They are Li Na, Nadia Petrova, Lucie Safarova, and Varvara Lepchenko.
Lucie herself didn't make it to rd of 16 of a slam this year, yet she had very good results at other tournaments.
Lepchenko just made it to the semis of a tournament for the first time this year about two weeks ago.
Although Lucie has been inconsistent does anyone really feel that she deserves to be ranked lower than Varvara?

For the most part no but we would be penalizing Lucie for inconsistent but at times good results if we were to change the system.
There will be a player similar to Lepchenko who would get over on a ranking change.
And honestly that occurs for any type of ranking system that's out there.
I honestly prefer it the way it is. Say they did change the system and gave a player 200 points for making the 3rd round and 310 for making the fourth round of a slam.

So a player who who makes the quarters, 4th round, and two first rounds of a slam would get 820 points but a player who made the 4 3rd rounds would only be 20 points in rankings just from the slams. That doesn't quite seem fair.

[KournikovaFan91]

Rather than increase points for R3/4 just decrease the R2 points from say 100 to 60 to even it up a bit.

[dencod16]

WTA does grant a lot of points in early round wins, like here a 1st round win has more points than ATP's second round win. That is why they get undeserving number 1's.

it should be
5
50
100
200
400
800
1300

[coolfish1103]

Let's say someone who wins all first round tournaments in a given year for all tournaments.

The best she will earn:

AO 100
RG 100
WI 100
US 100
--
IW 50
MI 50
MA 80
BJ 80
--
P5 70
P5 70
P5 70
P5 70
P5 70
--
PR 60
PR 60
PR 60

= 1,190

With the current ranking status, a player who only win 1 round of all tournaments will be ranked around 52. To be honest, that is a bit high if you beat no one seeded with a good draw. Good thing the example used here didn't warrant a Top 50, or it would be outrageous. When you compare that to winning an extra round: 2,065 = around 19 (about right)

[Curcubeu]

It's actually pretty obvious why it is like that.

The ITF wants to secure that all players whose ranking is good enough to play a slam or at least the qualies will play, because even if you are a complete deco turf mug like Cadantu, there is the slight chance of drawing a wildcard player which is even worse for easy 100 points, instead of withdrawing and playing smaller tournaments that week.

[xzchief]

Change the round 2 total to 70. That way, players would gain 65 points for a first-round win and 90 points for a second-round win. Making as little change to the point structure as possible while correcting the anomaly seems like a good idea.

[Shvedbarilescu]

Originally Posted by Curcubeu

It's actually pretty obvious why it is like that.

The ITF wants to secure that all players whose ranking is good enough to play a slam or at least the qualies will play, because even if you are a complete deco turf mug like Cadantu, there is the slight chance of drawing a wildcard player which is even worse for easy 100 points, instead of withdrawing and playing smaller tournaments that week.

Exactly. The ranking point breakdown per round on the WTA may seem strange at first but there are actually some very good arguments in favour of doing it this way. Firstly, and most importantly it ensures that every match is important and even if you can just win one match in a big tournament it is better than playing down in an ITF.

Basically the WTA rewards consistency and being able to win rounds on the tour on a regular basis whereas the ATP rewards winning titles more. I know some think it is good to give more points to the winners of tournaments and fewer to players who lose in the early rounds and that is indeed what is done on the ATP tour. But look at the results. It means players get more ranking points for winning small challenger events than they do for winning matches on the main tour. Consequently one sees loads of challenger level players who get the majority of their points playing 50 to 100K tournaments in the top 100. I wouldn't want the WTA to go down this route.

What we have now on the WTA tour is a system that rewards consistency and rewards playing at the biggest tournaments. And I for one think that's a good thing.

[Sombrerero loco]

Originally Posted by KournikovaFan91

Rather than increase points for R3/4 just decrease the R2 points from say 100 to 60 to even it up a bit.

this

also, they should change the points in slam qualies

40, 10, 10 is too bad
in mens side, its 8, 8, 25
its way better, i think

[bobito]

Originally Posted by 5tatRacket

Follows are the ranking points given for the different finishes in a Grand Slam:

W  2000
F  1400
S  900
Q  500
R4 280
R3 160
R2 100
R1 5

From this it can be easily calculated how many points a player earns for winning each individual round:

F  600
S  500
Q  400
R4 220
R3 120
R2 60
R1 95

Why are more points awarded for a 1st round win than a 2nd round win? It obviously becomes more difficult to win matches the further one progresses in an event. This is reflected at every stage of the point distribution aside from round 2. The same anomaly seems to exist in a lot of WTA events.

A player gets 60 points for making it through the qualies. Possibly the reason they give 95 points for reaching the 2nd round is to create a clear difference between a qualifier losing in R1 (60 pts) and a qualifier losing in R2 (95pts). Were the points for R2 and R3 to be 60 and 160, which would satisfy your criteria of increasing points for each round won, then a qualifier would get the same points for losing in R1 as she would for losing in R2.

The obvious solution would be to reduce the points for making it through the qualifying rounds. Having said that, you could argue that a player who makes it through 3 rounds of qualifying has often achieved more than a player who wins a 1st round match, especially if the 1st round match is against a low ranked wild card.

Perhaps the fairest way would be to reduce the points for qualifying rounds but for those points to be in addition to points won in the main draw. So a qualifier who makes it to R3 would get 160 points + the points for qualifying.

[Shvedbarilescu]

Originally Posted by Sombrerero loco

this

also, they should change the points in slam qualies

40, 10, 10 is too bad
in mens side, its 8, 8, 25
its way better, i think

Disagree. If you are only going to get 8 ranking points for a 1st round win in a Grand Slam qualie match why even bother. Better to play a challenger and actually have a decent chance at gaining some decent ranking points.

[Shvedbarilescu]

Originally Posted by bobito

A player gets 60 points for making it through the qualies. Possibly the reason they give 95 points for reaching the 2nd round is to create a clear difference between a qualifier losing in R1 (60 pts) and a qualifier losing in R2 (95pts). Were the points for R2 and R3 to be 60 and 160, which would satisfy your criteria of increasing points for each round won, then a qualifier would get the same points for losing in R1 as she would for losing in R2.

Actually no. A qualifier keeps the ranking points they won in qualifying no matter how far they go in the tournament. The points they win in the main draw are in addition to those won in qualifying. A qualifier who loses in the 2nd round of the main draw gets 160 ranking points. If she loses in the 3rd round of the main draw she gets 220 points.

[Freakan]

Qualifying and R2/R3 rankings points distribution are a total joke.

[Shvedbarilescu]

Originally Posted by Freakan

Qualifying and R2/R3 rankings points distribution are a total joke.

Funny you should say that. The way points are distributed favour the kind of player who consistently wins one or two matches almost every tournament she plays but rarely goes further. Almost all your faves, well the 1st three anyway, fall into this catergory and they definately benefit from this distribution of points.