2 – Breakdown of points in tournaments
Let’s start by saying: the ATP ranking as it is designed is an almost perfect jewel. It is no coincidence that the title of “Player of the Year” almost always went to the one who also the computer has identified as number 1 in the world according to the scores assigned in all the tournaments. Nonetheless, some changes over the years has also allowed the point distribution system, the latest in 2009, in order to further improve the consistency of computer data with what is seen on the field.
Ranking as it is does not make all players happy. Several times in the past Nadal has proposed, unsuccessfully, the idea of a two-year ranking, as happens in golf. More softly, however, passed a consideration by Federer that deserves as much attention, namely that the points awarded in the tournaments are too unbalanced in favor of the winner. Specifically, 360 points for the quarterfinals of a Slam, or a little more than those earned by those who lose the final in the ATP 500 tournament, seem a bit miserable if we compare the importance of the two goals.
The progression of the points also seems to follow a mathematical logic that suddenly jumps into the upper floors. In fact, in the first rounds the scores double at each step: 45, 90, 180, 360, 720. Up to the semifinal, each victory earns exactly the points accumulated up to that moment. Between the semi-final and the final, however, there is a clear decline. From 720 to 1200, it means that the victory in the semifinal brings “only” 480 points as a dowry, few again if compared to the 720 which should apply if the doubling rule continues.
A more correct progression, without prejudice to the principle that the final victory is worth 2000 points, should rise more linearly, abandoning the doubling rule first and rewarding more prestigious goals such as reaching the second week, or passing the first round . A win in a Slam game for many players means the realization of a dream and cannot have the value of a semifinal in a Challenger (45 points). Without taking anything away from the players who have honestly built a top 100 ranking in the sound of ITF tournaments, those who play well in the Slams should be more rewarded.
One proposal to discuss could be the following progression: (10), 80, 160, 320, 560, 880, 1320, 2000. These numbers are also designed to be divisible by eight, and therefore applicable with the same progression since tournaments ATP 250, which with the current system is not possible due to rounding.
