[coolfish1103]

Originally Posted by Shvedbarilescu

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.

That has nothing to do with it being his/her favorites at all.

[Shvedbarilescu]

Originally Posted by coolfish1103

That has nothing to do with it being his/her favorites at all.

That might be the case...or it might not. Either way I think Freakan can speak for himself and he doesn't need you to put words in his mouth.

[spiceboy]

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

Yeah and cut-off for Melbourne qualifying would be #1243 being the last 20 accepted players Australian, Kiwis, Robbyn Bedow, Stamatia Fafaliou, Liga Dekmeijere and Alicja Rosolska

[Sombrerero loco]

i dont get why
actually, in the atp the points are like that, and cut-off is nice

come on, its a gs. you can vulture all the other weeks on week challengers

[Shvedbarilescu]

Originally Posted by spiceboy

Yeah and cut-off for Melbourne qualifying would be #1243 being the last 20 accepted players Australian, Kiwis, Robbyn Bedow, Stamatia Fafaliou, Liga Dekmeijere and Alicja Rosolska

Spot on

[spiceboy]

Originally Posted by Sombrerero loco

i dont get why
actually, in the atp the points are like that, and cut-off is nice

come on, its a gs. you can vulture all the other weeks on week challengers

ATP awards less points than WTA so 8 points is not that bad. Winning a MD match in ATP Winston Salem gives you 10 points. The least you get for a MD win in a WTA is 18 points for Birmingham and its 56 player draw.

And still cut-off for men in GS qualies is notably lower than WTA (regardless of having a 128 draw instead of 96 as WTA does).

[Freakan]

Originally Posted by Shvedbarilescu

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.

My signature hasn't been updated in probably 4-5 years
And it doesn't have anything to do with them, points distribution is a total joke in the cases mentioned and has no logical bases. Player who qualified for GS MD 2 times and lost in 1st round twice will get as many points as a player who reached 2nd round of qualies 3times by beating local WCs

[Sombrerero loco]

Originally Posted by spiceboy

ATP awards less points than WTA so 8 points is not that bad. Winning a MD match in ATP Winston Salem gives you 10 points. The least you get for a MD win in a WTA is 18 points for Birmingham and its 56 player draw.

And still cut-off for men in GS qualies is notably lower than WTA (regardless of having a 128 draw instead of 96 as WTA does).

same for wta. winning a match on a MM is 30 points, winning a match on an atp-250 gives you 20 points
i dont understand how in hell winning 1 round in slam qualies(first round) gives you more points than winning a match on MM main draw

[Djezonfly]

Originally Posted by spiceboy

Yeah and cut-off for Melbourne qualifying would be #1243 being the last 20 accepted players Australian, Kiwis, Robbyn Bedow, Stamatia Fafaliou, Liga Dekmeijere and Alicja Rosolska

I think that players would show up anyway. The paycheck is quite nice for a challenger player, even if you lose in QR1.

[terjw]

Originally Posted by Shvedbarilescu

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.

Do you really think a player would pass up a chance to play in a slam based on ranking points awarded. I would have thought even if they had a chance of points in another ITF tournament they'd miss if they played in the slam - what player would pass up the chance of playing the next round of a slam and withdraw so as to play in another ITF event?

[Shvedbarilescu]

Originally Posted by terjw

Do you really think a player would pass up a chance to play in a slam based on ranking points awarded. I would have thought even if they had a chance of points in another ITF tournament they'd miss if they played in the slam - what player would pass up the chance of playing the next round of a slam and withdraw so as to play in another ITF event?

As Spiceboy points out last year the ATP Australian Open cutoff for qualifying was 1243. So draw your own conclusion. Ranking points matter a lot to players ranked outside of the top 100. Fact is, they matter a lot more than they do to players who are ranked in the top 100.

[spiceboy]

Originally Posted by Djezonfly

I think that players would show up anyway. The paycheck is quite nice for a challenger player, even if you lose in QR1.

Yes. It is a nice paycheck for local players. But especially in Melbourne that "nice" paycheck decreases dramatically only with travel expenses if you come from Europe or even North or South America. And remember we are not talking about 1R MD losers, but potential 1R qualy losers. Their paycheck is not THAT generous considering you have to travel to the other side of the world.

Originally Posted by terjw

what player would pass up the chance of playing the next round of a slam and withdraw so as to play in another ITF event?

Mona Barthel did so last year in mid-January. She felt it wasn't worthy money-wise to come down to Australia. She played (and won) a $25K in France instead and started her great run in these last two seasons. Of course not every European player think the same but there are some who feel like that and then if you even reduce the 40 points jackpot for a qualy win this would certainly harm the draw even more.

[spiceboy]

Originally Posted by Shvedbarilescu

As Spiceboy points out last year the ATP Australian Open cutoff for qualifying was 1243. So draw your own conclusion. Ranking points matter a lot to players ranked outside of the top 100. Fact is, they matter a lot more than they do to players who are ranked in the top 100.

Actually, I have no idea which was the Australian Open cut-off for men last year as I just said a random number Surely it wasn't as low as 1243 but definitely wasn't as strong as the women's one.

[Sombrerero loco]

it was around 250, cos millman had to use SR to enter they didnt give him a wc, of course they wont give him one next year having said what he said about tennis australia

[Meelis]

Originally Posted by spiceboy

Actually, I have no idea which was the Australian Open cut-off for men last year

288 this year, 287 in 2011 and 350 in 2010