Does anybody find the ATP scoring system absurd ,like me?

Question

Frankly I find the scoring system a bit absurd.I dont see how Federer should lose a whooping 300 points just because he could not "defend"his Wimbledon title.Same 300 points awarded to Nadal,the winner.So if the maximum points was deducted from Fed,even at reaching the finals,how much would have been deducted if he lost at round 1? What exactly is "title defence"?.Should the same point deduction be exacted on a title defender irrespective of how far he advances in the tournament?If so then I find it unfair.For getting to the finals at all,Fed should not lose the maximum point obtainable for winning the event.Can some body educate me on the rationale for this huge point deduction?

Answer 1

The ATP scoring system is based on the player's performance and tournament results he achieved. Since wimbledon is a Grand Slam event winning it enables the player to earn 1000 points. Federer won the event in 2007 thereby successfully defending his points. However comes wimbledon 2008 he should defend his 1000 points as the champion of the previous year but nadal defeated him in the final therefore forfeiting him 300 points but still retains 700 points being a finalist. Before the start of wimbledon federer has 6900 ranking points but he is the loser the 300 points will be deducted thereby reducing his ranking points to the current 6600 points.

Answer 2

You get a certain number of points per round you advance in the tournament.  All the major events from the past 1 year count towards your total.

If you win a Slam you get 1000 points, as it is the biggest event there is.  If you are the runner up, you only get 700.  If you lose in the Semi's you get 450 ... and so on.

2007's Wimbledon record was removed from the rankings, so Federer was deducted 1000 points, and Nadal was deducted 700.  As Nadal won it this time around he got the 1000 and Federer only got the 700.

So it has had the effect of a 600 point swing in favour of Nadal (Nadal +300 & Federer -300).

If the current gap of 545 points remains until the US Open, all Nadal would have to do is reach the final to gain the World Number 1 spot.  As Federer has to defend his 1000 point win at the tournament, and Nadal only has to defend 150 for an exit at the round of 16 last year.  So 700 points for finishing runner up would still give him 5 points more even if Federer won it.

Hope that makes some sense!

Answer 3

Though the mens ranking points differs from the womens, slightly, it is quite fair.  Federer despite reaching the final loses some points for not winning it, and obviously Nadal gains a few for going further than last season as a runner up to the champ. Most times top players earn 700 points for the slam win. However, depending on ranking, and how many players ranked above you, that you beat, you can earn more. Nadal and Fed defended their points from last season reaching the final, but this time Nadal prevailed for extra points.  Federer from winning so much, so often, has maintained a comfortable lead. If for some reason he ever bows out in an early round of any tourney that he had either won or reached final the year before, he does lose a bunch of points, as well as other players that perform by not going as deep as the previous season. With the hard courts approaching, will prove most interesting. Fed and Nadal are clearly the 2 best players out there, but as nadal has steadily showed, and improved on grass, he is slowly picking up game on hard courts, even though he has some wins on the surface. Along with the fact that despite Roger still playing very well, he just isnt winning as much, for the level of competition has increased. Nadal can gain points this summer by going deep into tournaments and close the gap.

Answer 4

The total maximum points obtainable for winning a grand slam is 1000. If you get to the final, you get 700. Hence the reason why Federer lost 300. His achievement is still recognised as he still retains the 700 points for getting to the final. On Nadal's side, he is awarded with an extra 300 points for winning it.

The earlier a person loses in a tournament, the less points they will earn. If they did well in that tournament the previous year, the points they will potentially lose will be greater the earlier they lose.

I think this is a fair way of doing it as you can't expect to keep rewarding people in the current rankings for achievements in the past. Otherwise, they won't be current rankings.