Tennis Forum banner

How Should The Rankings Be Calculated Once Pro Tennis Resumes ???


  • Total voters
    35
161 - 180 of 225 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,259 Posts
neither option in this poll is good.

The most obvious & fair solution across the board, is to go to 2-year rolling rankings. In other words, no points drop during the abbreviated season this year or after AO '021... then when Indian Wells is played (presumably) next March, you start dropping the 2019 points and continue from there. It's the only way to prevent players who did well in '019 from getting ripped off.
But at the same time it means that players on a rise, or that had a bad year in 2019, will have more difficulty to climb the ranking.
If something is good from one part it's going to be bad to another, only neutral decisions are really fair.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,316 Posts
I assume that any points picked up this year to now will automatically drop off as usual next year as they always do?

I'm thinking of Kenin's Aust Open win, and all the points picked up by the hottest player on tour before the covid19 hit, Rybakina.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,565 Posts
I assume that any points picked up this year to now will automatically drop off as usual next year as they always do?

I'm thinking of Kenin's Aust Open win, and all the points picked up by the hottest player on tour before the covid19 hit, Rybakina.
We don’t know yet , we’re still waiting for the WTA ...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,085 Posts
But at the same time it means that players on a rise, or that had a bad year in 2019, will have more difficulty to climb the ranking.
If something is good from one part it's going to be bad to another, only neutral decisions are really fair.

ok but for example Rybakina, while her rise will be a bit delayed, it's still going to occur eventually, because she'll be able to hold onto all those points she racked up early this year until the start of '022... as for players who had a bad 2019, it's only right that they should be punished in the rankings for their poor results... such players don't deserve to be saved from having their ranking drop thanks to the COVID interruption.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,085 Posts
I assume that any points picked up this year to now will automatically drop off as usual next year as they always do?

I'm thinking of Kenin's Aust Open win, and all the points picked up by the hottest player on tour before the covid19 hit, Rybakina.

yes... and it will be extremely unfair to devalue the great results that Kenin & Rybakina earned, by dropping their points at 52 weeks. They deserve to keep those points for another half a year at minimum.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
30 Posts
While there is no right and wrong answer here, imo they should be replacing 2019 points with 2020 if a player attends the same tournament. The only argument against this method that I’ve seen is those who did well in 2019 (e.g. Barty or Andreescu) won’t have any motivation to show up. I would not just assume they won’t but if that is the case I’d say so be it. Let sponsors and fans deal with no-shows, and of course no prize money for them.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,085 Posts
While there is no right and wrong answer here, imo they should be replacing 2019 points with 2020 if a player attends the same tournament. The only argument against this method that I’ve seen is those who did well in 2019 (e.g. Barty or Andreescu) won’t have any motivation to show up. I would not just assume they won’t but if that is the case I’d say so be it. Let sponsors and fans deal with no-shows, and of course no price money for them.

sure, let's punish the players who did well in 2019 by taking away their earned points, while we give a free pass to the ones who played like shit by letting them start over with a clean slate.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
30 Posts
If they played the same tournament in 2020 and the one who did well in 2019 lost to the one who “played like shit” as you call it, why is it punishing? I'd say it is nothing but fair. Again, the only unfair situation arises when someone decides to skip playing altogether so that they keep the 2019 points. Yes those would get a free pass but so be it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,085 Posts
If they played the same tournament in 2020 and the one who did well in 2019 lost to the one who “played like shit” as you call it, why is it punishing?

because the post-COVID winner gains the full time value of the points, while the pre-COVID winner has had the time value of her points discounted at 50 percent or more (since at least half the 2020 season is lost). The only fair way is to let EVERYBODY keep their points for a longer period of time than the usual 52 weeks. Extending the ranking period to 2 years (starting from the point of interruption at Indian Wells) is the simplest and most transparent way to do this.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,259 Posts
because the post-COVID winner gains the full time value of the points, while the pre-COVID winner has had the time value of her points discounted at 50 percent or more (since at least half the 2020 season is lost). The only fair way is to let EVERYBODY keep their points for a longer period of time than the usual 52 weeks. Extending the ranking period to 2 years (starting from the point of interruption at Indian Wells) is the simplest and most transparent way to do this.
Points have no value "per se", what really counts is the ranking position, that decides who can access into the tournaments. If one can add points but cannot gain the same positions than usual because the ones on front don't lose points, even if not playing, is somewhat penalized.

But it is in avoidable, this is a game with zero balance, if someone is happy about a solution there will be some other unhappy.

ATP has decided to make happy the big 3 and the players high in the rank, and it makes a lot of sense from their point of view, after all who cares about the lower ranked or younger players? 😁
Let's see the WTA decision, logically should be as ATP (apart the race), but who can tell?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
90 Posts
ok but for example Rybakina, while her rise will be a bit delayed, it's still going to occur eventually, because she'll be able to hold onto all those points she racked up early this year until the start of '022... as for players who had a bad 2019, it's only right that they should be punished in the rankings for their poor results... such players don't deserve to be saved from having their ranking drop thanks to the COVID interruption.
Are you sure this is what happens with points from early 2020? From the announcement it doesn’t really clarify. It also says the system goes back to normal in 2021. Does this mean that AO points are dropped in January 21?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,565 Posts
It also says the system goes back to normal in 2021. Does this mean that AO points are dropped in January 21?
Yes


Tour-level tournament points added in 2020 that count in a player’s Ranking Breakdown will remain on a player’s ranking for 52 weeks, or until the event in question is played again in 2021, whichever comes first.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
363 Posts
What if there are some players who are prevented from playing for the rest of this year due to border lockdown or government decisions???

That would mean the other players have 4 months of extra points they can add to their total increasing their rank and when this player returns they are lower in the rankings, missing out on seedings and getting harder draws because of it.

I am not necessarily opposed to the idea of 2 year rolling rankings, it seems to work well for golf. Just not sure it is as fair of a solution as you think at the moment.

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk
In Golf the rankings are based on average points of all tournaments in the last year, and not just best 16 tournament. Other than that, the entry is not based solely on the world ranking, but also given to previous tournament winners, other tournament achievements in the last 52 weeks (and there are other criteria too), it's much more complicated that just stating they use 2 years rankings.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
30 Posts
ATP has decided to make happy the big 3 and the players high in the rank, and it makes a lot of sense from their point of view, after all who cares about the lower ranked or younger players? 😁
Let's see the WTA decision, logically should be as ATP (apart the race), but who can tell?
Could not agree more. If the purpose was to gratify the elite and diminish value of current results, the system with keeping all points for 2 years is a grandiose success. Tennis will become a private top-150 club for 2 years plus, but who cares.

In a sense, this is similar to injuries. If a player did great and then gets injured, he/she skips all the tournaments until return. The rating is frozen until return and then tournaments are substituted routinely once he/she starts playing again. No one is crying about punishing or keeping points. Unlucky – yes, unfair – no.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
90 Posts
Yes


Tour-level tournament points added in 2020 that count in a player’s Ranking Breakdown will remain on a player’s ranking for 52 weeks, or until the event in question is played again in 2021, whichever comes first.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
This would mean that points from this tournament would be valid for 7 active months rather than 52 weeks. Massively unfair.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,085 Posts
Could not agree more. If the purpose was to gratify the elite and diminish value of current results, the system with keeping all points for 2 years is a grandiose success. Tennis will become a private top-150 club for 2 years plus, but who cares.

In a sense, this is similar to injuries. If a player did great and then gets injured, he/she skips all the tournaments until return. The rating is frozen until return and then tournaments are substituted routinely once he/she starts playing again. No one is crying about punishing or keeping points. Unlucky – yes, unfair – no.

what the hell are you talking about? Nobody wants to diminish the value of current results... what you're proposing is to INFLATE the value of current results at the expense of the pre-COVID results, which are no less valid.

Your comparison to injury ranking is 100% irrelevant, i have no idea where that came from. You want to give the whole tour an injury ranking?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,688 Posts
Discussion Starter #178
neither option in this poll is good.

The most obvious & fair solution across the board, is to go to 2-year rolling rankings. In other words, no points drop during the abbreviated season this year or after AO '021... then when Indian Wells is played (presumably) next March, you start dropping the 2019 points and continue from there. It's the only way to prevent players who did well in '019 from getting ripped off.
This poll was made months ago and we were not expecting the tour to be on hiatus for so long due to poor handling of the pandemic.

--

Anyway if WTA wants to make more sense than ATP they would want to do the following:

1. Rankings to stay valid for 24 months and will start dropping when the first cancelled event is played (2021 Indian Wells week).
2. All tour events played from when the tour re-starts will be counted only as best of either (2019/2020 or 2020/2021).
3. All challengers and future events played from when the tour re-starts till the first cancelled week will be counted only as best of (mid Indian Wells), meaning the event will only count if it's one of the best 16 events (or 11 in doubles) since challengers and futures have no set calendar spots. It will not replace the same event played in 2019 unless that event goes out of the best 16 (or 11 in doubles) or out of the 24 months window.
4. 2020 Porsche Race will only count events played in 2020. Guangzhou on the tentative calendar will not be counted as it's played after the YEC and it will be counted for 2021.
5. Year End #1 will be awarded based on events played in 2020. Year End #1-10 will not receive a (or receive a reduced) bonus incentive in 2021 due to shortened tour season.
6. Rankings will resume when the tour returns from hiatus. Missing weeks between Indian Wells till when the tour re-starts will not count for weeks of in ranking positions. Weeks in #1 will count when the tour re-starts (even during off season).
7. Rankings will return to 12 months as they drop next year. If Roland Garros is to be played this October and next May, the best result will stick until it's no longer valid.
- meaning if you have 2019 RG QF, 2020 RG R16, 2021 RG R64 as the results on your breakdown, in 2020 November your 2019 RG QF will count as the result for RG, in 2021 June your 2020 RG R16 will count as the result for RG, in 2021 November your 2021 RG R64 result will count as the result for RG.
8. Entry list will continue to be based on the rankings published each week, but the deadline may be adjusted according to COVID-19 situations and where needed (2, 3 or 4 weeks).
9. If the tour does not re-start as scheduled or goes into hiatus after re-started, this system may be adjusted accordingly.
 
  • Like
Reactions: M.A.S.L.

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,085 Posts
This poll was made months ago and we were not expecting the tour to be on hiatus for so long due to poor handling of the pandemic.

--

Anyway if WTA wants to make more sense than ATP they would want to do the following:

1. Rankings to stay valid for 24 months and will start dropping when the first cancelled event is played (2021 Indian Wells week).
2. All tour events played from when the tour re-starts will be counted only as best of either (2019/2020 or 2020/2021).
3. All challengers and future events played from when the tour re-starts till the first cancelled week will be counted only as best of (mid Indian Wells), meaning the event will only count if it's one of the best 16 events (or 11 in doubles) since challengers and futures have no set calendar spots. It will not replace the same event played in 2019 unless that event goes out of the best 16 (or 11 in doubles) or out of the 24 months window.
4. 2020 Porsche Race will only count events played in 2020. Guangzhou on the tentative calendar will not be counted as it's played after the YEC and it will be counted for 2021.
5. Year End #1 will be awarded based on events played in 2020. Year End #1-10 will not receive a (or receive a reduced) bonus incentive in 2021 due to shortened tour season.
6. Rankings will resume when the tour returns from hiatus. Missing weeks between Indian Wells till when the tour re-starts will not count for weeks of in ranking positions. Weeks in #1 will count when the tour re-starts (even during off season).
7. Rankings will return to 12 months as they drop next year. If Roland Garros is to be played this October and next May, the best result will stick until it's no longer valid.
- meaning if you have 2019 RG QF, 2020 RG R16, 2021 RG R64 as the results on your breakdown, in 2020 November your 2019 RG QF will count as the result for RG, in 2021 June your 2020 RG R16 will count as the result for RG, in 2021 November your 2021 RG R64 result will count as the result for RG.
8. Entry list will continue to be based on the rankings published each week, but the deadline may be adjusted according to COVID-19 situations and where needed (2, 3 or 4 weeks).
9. If the tour does not re-start as scheduled or goes into hiatus after re-started, this system may be adjusted accordingly.

In my opinion, in a 24-month ranking system, the "best-of" number in each player's ranking needs to be proportionally enlarged to reflect the larger number of events held during the period... it should be increased (for example) to Best 22. And also, there should be no bias against counting results from an event both times that you play it during the 2 years... if somebody reached the USO quarterfinals in 2019 and then again this year, both results should go into the ranking, it's unfair not to reward the performance.

As for 3 simultaneous RG results, i'm not sure what you mean, as the RG '019 points will drop off before the RG '021 points come on.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,666 Posts
I think Serena totally deserves to be number 1 in the ranking. She won Auckland.
 
161 - 180 of 225 Posts
Top