ATP & WTA rankings

[JazzNU]

I'm waiting to see what happens after Miami and if the WTA's points start dropping off as planned. With the Federer and Olympics issues, it seems like the discontent will get louder not quietly go away. Give that up until now the ATP and the WTA had the same rankings approach during the pandemic, if the WTA doesn't adjust to the ATP's new rules, it will seem strange for the ATP I think. Now, that might happen, news coming out of Europe doesn't exactly make it seem like smooth sailing for the clay court season. But if the WTA is unfreezing with none of the special math, then why is the ATP? Seems like a fair question that is bound to be asked quite a bit if the WTA doesn't change course.

[ponchi101]

Wouldn't Roger be in the Olympics simply because he is the Swiss #2?

[ti-amie]

Wouldn't Roger be in the Olympics simply because he is the Swiss #2?

Talk about random. I looked for no clue and there he was.

[Omess]

I think a valid point is being lost in the Barty-hate to but Kvitova and Svitolina are on the list. Both tours can be called to task for how they've handled their ranking systems but I think it's only the ATP that has gone out of its way to protect one player and you hardly hear anything about that from many fans and none of the "credentialed media".

Still Tennis Australia went out of its way to protect Barty with a cakewalk draw that she still didn't take advantage of.

Because it is simply not true. Others players are greatly benefiting too


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Suliso]

Lorenzo Musetti has reached the top 100 to become only the 2nd teenager there and 9th Italian.

Countries with more than 1 top 100 player:

Spain - 11
France 11
USA - 10
Italy - 9
Serbia -5
Argentina - 5
Australia - 5
Russia - 4
Canada - 4
Germany - 3
UK - 3
Austria - 2
Switzerland - 2
Croatia - 2
Japan - 2
South Africa - 2

[JazzNU]

Wouldn't Roger be in the Olympics simply because he is the Swiss #2?

No. Olympics qualification is, I don't remember the exact number, so let's say it's the Top 64 singles ranked players. And then a few more outside of that Top 64 will qualify because no more than 4 athletes can come from a single country. If they did a full unfreezing of the points counting X number of events played in the last 52 weeks there's just no way. Reaction to the new rankings update announcement were loud about the ATP doing this all for Federer, which leads me to believe if they had stuck with the original unfreezing of the rankings, there's serious doubt that he'd have remained a higher ranking.

[ti-amie]

I think a valid point is being lost in the Barty-hate to but Kvitova and Svitolina are on the list. Both tours can be called to task for how they've handled their ranking systems but I think it's only the ATP that has gone out of its way to protect one player and you hardly hear anything about that from many fans and none of the "credentialed media".

Still Tennis Australia went out of its way to protect Barty with a cakewalk draw that she still didn't take advantage of.

Because it is simply not true. Others players are greatly benefiting too


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Other players are benefitting too? How? Please clarify what is and isn't true.

[Omess]

Wouldn't Roger be in the Olympics simply because he is the Swiss #2?

No. Olympics qualification is, I don't remember the exact number, so let's say it's the Top 64 singles ranked players. And then a few more outside of that Top 64 will qualify because no more than 4 athletes can come from a single country. If they did a full unfreezing of the points counting X number of events played in the last 52 weeks there's just no way. Reaction to the new rankings update announcement were loud about the ATP doing this all for Federer, which leads me to believe if they had stuck with the original unfreezing of the rankings, there's serious doubt that he'd have remained a higher ranking.

If the ranking are 100% completely unfreeze, Federer will lose 2680 points assuming he doesn’t play until the grass season for 3695 points or currently 9 in the ranking.

Now even with the new adjustment he will still lose 1800 points for 4575 total points or 9 in the ranking .

In short, the latest adjustment doesn’t help him at all


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[JazzNU]

I'm not doing any of these calculations, but many have been done them to show Federer is benefiting from these freezes. I think it's possible you're doing the best of 2019 and 2020 way, which may not differ that much. Many are pointing out traditional ranking schedules I believe, within the last 52 weeks.

[Suliso]

I'm not doing any of these calculations, but many have been done them to show Federer is benefiting from these freezes. I think it's possible you're doing the best of 2019 and 2020 way, which may not differ that much. Many are pointing out traditional ranking schedules I believe, within the last 52 weeks.

That wouldn't make sense with so little tournaments having been played last year. Both tours (also badminton tours in case anyone cares) have been using a two year ranking system since play resumed. I do agree though that starting from March 1st all 2019 points should be dropped on weekly basis as normal.

[JazzNU]

That wouldn't make sense with so little tournaments having been played last year. Both tours (also badminton tours in case anyone cares) have been using a two year ranking system since play resumed. I do agree though that starting from March 1st all 2019 points should be dropped on weekly basis as normal.

I'm not saying it makes sense. I agree about how few tournaments have been played. But from the tweets and articles with calculation that @Ti, and I thought you, posted for the ATP when they are showing Rublev at #3 and #4 and for the WTA showing Osaka at #1 and Muguruza, Azarenka, and Swiatek in the Top 10. Those have all appeared to be based on the last 52 weeks. Maybe I'm not reading them closely enough, but that's been my impression of the how they did those calculations.

[ti-amie]

Omess posts are the only ones I've seen that don't show Federer tumbling out of the top 100. The comments of ATP players, and others who have taken time to work this out, make me think our friend here is starting from a different place to make his calculations.

[ti-amie]

Briggs post is behind a paywall but he snapped at someone for reacting to his tweet and not his article.

[Omess]

Omess posts are the only ones I've seen that don't show Federer tumbling out of the top 100. The comments of ATP players, and others who have taken time to work this out, make me think our friend here is starting from a different place to make his calculations.

The ATP/WTA announced temporary rules change in July 2020 in the middle of a global pandemic. Everyone agreed with them , as we saw a huge amount of no show at the USO and at others tournaments since then . Look at the huge withdrawals list for ATP Miami

So of course if you only look at the points earned in 2020/last 52 weeks, players like Federer or Andreescu will not be in the top 300

So I am not starting at different point but just following the temporary rule from July 2020


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Omess]

I'm not doing any of these calculations, but many have been done them to show Federer is benefiting from these freezes. I think it's possible you're doing the best of 2019 and 2020 way, which may not differ that much. Many are pointing out traditional ranking schedules I believe, within the last 52 weeks.

They are doing within the last 52 weeks of course Federer or Andreescu will be nowhere near the top 100 as they have barely played.

Yes, they are consequences of this best of 2019/2020 rule. It is much harder to move up the ranking but the suggestion that it is all about Federer is just not true


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro