BOARD TALK
The fastest growing tennis discussion forum on the planet.


Post Reply 
Should a player receive...
Author Message
1972Murat Offline
Multiple Slam Winner
********

Posts: 8,512
Likes Given: 2,151
Likes Received: 3,161 in 1,854 posts
Joined: Apr 2013
Should a player receive...
...bonus points for beating a higher ranked player? Would that create more incentive to show up as opposed to the "I've got nothing to lose" attitude? Or would it change nothing?

I kinda like the idea of a scale where a player ranked in the 50s gets some extra points for beating someone ranked in the 40s, and more for 30's and so on...on top of the points you get from ATP for advancing.

Would it work?

24-Jun-2013 05:23 PM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[-] The following 1 user Likes 1972Murat's post:
nehmeth (06-25-2013)
tented Offline
Potential GOAT
*********

Posts: 11,618
Likes Given: 4,705
Likes Received: 3,392 in 2,108 posts
Joined: Apr 2013
RE: Should a player receive...
(24-Jun-2013 05:23 PM)1972Murat Wrote:  ...bonus points for beating a higher ranked player?

Not if it's Rafa at Wimbledon. Too easy.
(This post was last modified: 24-Jun-2013 06:00 PM by tented.)
24-Jun-2013 05:27 PM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Ilovetennis2 Offline
Pro
***

Posts: 98
Likes Given: 33
Likes Received: 23 in 11 posts
Joined: May 2013
RE: Should a player receive...
Personally I wouldn't mind something like this.
24-Jun-2013 05:53 PM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Mastoor Offline
Seasoned Pro
****

Posts: 445
Likes Given: 10
Likes Received: 75 in 54 posts
Joined: Apr 2013
RE: Should a player receive...
As long as No1e is #1 they should not introduce the bonus points. Wink
24-Jun-2013 07:47 PM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Moxie629 Offline
Multiple Slam Winner
********

Posts: 9,429
Likes Given: 3,414
Likes Received: 2,277 in 1,599 posts
Joined: Apr 2013
RE: Should a player receive...
It's an interesting question, since all round wins are perceived as being equal, and upsets don't garner more points. I'm not sure how you'd score it, but it could make the top 100, at least, more volatile.
24-Jun-2013 10:20 PM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
BalaryKar Offline
Pro
***

Posts: 129
Likes Given: 30
Likes Received: 20 in 17 posts
Joined: Apr 2013
RE: Should a player receive...
I don't see the point in giving more points for beating a higher ranked player. Consider this scenario where the No.1 meets the No.2 in all the finals and beats the No.2 in more than half of those finals. However, for loosing more finals the No.2 has a good chance of sneaking in at No.1 position. And if the weight-age is not supposed in that way, what is the point of giving more points for the lesser ranked player?
24-Jun-2013 10:48 PM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
DarthFed Offline
Multiple Slam Winner
********

Posts: 7,331
Likes Given: 830
Likes Received: 1,947 in 1,281 posts
Joined: Apr 2013
RE: Should a player receive...
I think you run into plenty of problems doing something like that. Take today for instance, you could have Darcis get a ton of bonus points for winning today but what happens if he loses to a journeyman next round while someone like Haas (#13 seed) could beat a few easier players and lose in the 4th round to Nole and get less points than Darcis did for reaching the 2nd round. Unless by bonus points you are talking like 10-20 points or something like that. Then it almost becomes inconsequential.
24-Jun-2013 10:56 PM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[-] The following 2 users Like DarthFed's post:
Moxie629 (06-24-2013), tented (06-24-2013)
johnsteinbeck Offline
Major Winner
******

Posts: 1,010
Likes Given: 338
Likes Received: 307 in 177 posts
Joined: Apr 2013
RE: Should a player receive...
^ i think you hit the nail on the the head with "inconsequential". commentators on Radio Wimbledon talked about it yesterday (surprise!) - after all, there WAS a bonus points system until i think some time in the nineties. (funny enough, because with the surfaces factor back then, it was considerably easier to score an upset. when Muster bothered to show up at Wimbledon, no matter his ranking, beating him was a gimme for anyone who had the slightest clue as to how to play on grass).

i think it's a good thought, a minor boost, as it does make a difference whether you beat a top 100, top 50, top 10 opponent or just some local boy with a wild card. and in theory, it could aide the motivation for those unfortunate enough to draw a quality opponent early. Anyway, when they tried to simplify the ranking system, they looked at those points and it turned out that they had hardly any effect on the rankings - just a handful of players who'd switch a place or two. so in the end, it's not big enough a deal to warrant a special rule.

i think the attention and kudos received for such a feat are reward enough.
25-Jun-2013 03:11 AM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[-] The following 2 users Like johnsteinbeck's post:
DarthFed (06-25-2013), Denisovich (06-25-2013)
calitennis127 Offline
Banned
*

Posts: 1,801
Likes Given: 25
Likes Received: 234 in 172 posts
Joined: Apr 2013
RE: Should a player receive...
(24-Jun-2013 05:27 PM)tented Wrote:  
(24-Jun-2013 05:23 PM)1972Murat Wrote:  ...bonus points for beating a higher ranked player?

Not if it's Rafa at Wimbledon. Too easy.

Agreed.
(This post was last modified: 25-Jun-2013 06:37 PM by calitennis127.)
25-Jun-2013 06:36 PM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Moxie629 Offline
Multiple Slam Winner
********

Posts: 9,429
Likes Given: 3,414
Likes Received: 2,277 in 1,599 posts
Joined: Apr 2013
RE: Should a player receive...
(25-Jun-2013 03:11 AM)johnsteinbeck Wrote:  ^ i think you hit the nail on the the head with "inconsequential". commentators on Radio Wimbledon talked about it yesterday (surprise!) - after all, there WAS a bonus points system until i think some time in the nineties. (funny enough, because with the surfaces factor back then, it was considerably easier to score an upset. when Muster bothered to show up at Wimbledon, no matter his ranking, beating him was a gimme for anyone who had the slightest clue as to how to play on grass).

i think it's a good thought, a minor boost, as it does make a difference whether you beat a top 100, top 50, top 10 opponent or just some local boy with a wild card. and in theory, it could aide the motivation for those unfortunate enough to draw a quality opponent early. Anyway, when they tried to simplify the ranking system, they looked at those points and it turned out that they had hardly any effect on the rankings - just a handful of players who'd switch a place or two. so in the end, it's not big enough a deal to warrant a special rule.

i think the attention and kudos received for such a feat are reward enough.

Personally, I think the confidence boost is the biggest factor, and it depends on how a player capitalizes on it. However, it would be interesting to know how they used to do it. Maybe some bonus for beating top 10 players, if you're far enough away from the top 10, (I wouldn't give a bump to a #12 player, say, for beating someone top 10,) and maybe something if there's a big enough discrepancy between the rankings of the two players?
25-Jun-2013 06:56 PM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Denisovich Offline
Grand Slam Champion
*******

Posts: 3,826
Likes Given: 1,325
Likes Received: 877 in 627 posts
Joined: Apr 2013
RE: Should a player receive...
(25-Jun-2013 03:11 AM)johnsteinbeck Wrote:  ^ i think you hit the nail on the the head with "inconsequential". commentators on Radio Wimbledon talked about it yesterday (surprise!) - after all, there WAS a bonus points system until i think some time in the nineties. (funny enough, because with the surfaces factor back then, it was considerably easier to score an upset. when Muster bothered to show up at Wimbledon, no matter his ranking, beating him was a gimme for anyone who had the slightest clue as to how to play on grass).

i think it's a good thought, a minor boost, as it does make a difference whether you beat a top 100, top 50, top 10 opponent or just some local boy with a wild card. and in theory, it could aide the motivation for those unfortunate enough to draw a quality opponent early. Anyway, when they tried to simplify the ranking system, they looked at those points and it turned out that they had hardly any effect on the rankings - just a handful of players who'd switch a place or two. so in the end, it's not big enough a deal to warrant a special rule.

i think the attention and kudos received for such a feat are reward enough.

Ha, yes beating Muster on grass and getting extra points for it! But that was quite exceptional though, I think it's not a bad idea actually, as the surface has become less of a factor.
25-Jun-2013 07:00 PM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
JesuslookslikeBorg Offline
Grand Slam Champion
*******

Posts: 4,657
Likes Given: 337
Likes Received: 966 in 695 posts
Joined: Apr 2013
RE: Should a player receive...
the atp used to award bonus points for wins against the top players in the old days didn't they ??..

in the 70s/80s ?? or what.

knowing me alan partridge, knowing you tennis frontier..ah ha.
25-Jun-2013 10:03 PM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Moxie629 Offline
Multiple Slam Winner
********

Posts: 9,429
Likes Given: 3,414
Likes Received: 2,277 in 1,599 posts
Joined: Apr 2013
RE: Should a player receive...
(25-Jun-2013 10:03 PM)JesuslookslikeBorg. Wrote:  the atp used to award bonus points for wins against the top players in the old days didn't they ??..

in the 70s/80s ?? or what.

See above. According to Johnsteinbeck, into the 90s.
25-Jun-2013 10:43 PM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
lindseywagners Offline
Pro
***

Posts: 130
Likes Given: 6
Likes Received: 15 in 10 posts
Joined: Apr 2013
RE: Should a player receive...
This seems to me like it would be something the players would be concerned with, not the fans. Personally, a different points system rewarding mediocre players isn't going to change anything for me watching. Those guys will still, ultimately, not end up contending at the big events, and a once-in-a-while (albeit, occurring in back-to-back years, uncharacteristically) fluke like yesterday with Nadal isn't going to really change Darcis' standing much. His ranking, over time, would eventually mellow out to where he is now.
25-Jun-2013 11:44 PM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
johnsteinbeck Offline
Major Winner
******

Posts: 1,010
Likes Given: 338
Likes Received: 307 in 177 posts
Joined: Apr 2013
RE: Should a player receive...
one thing's for sure though, it'd definitely confuse a lot of fans. then again, most 'fans' don't seem to care about the rankings below #1-4, and these wouldn't be affected anyway (plus, people seem to be confused even by the current system, which surprises me. how hard is "52 week rolling" to understand? the only detail that might be confusing would be the non-countables, i guess).
26-Jun-2013 01:15 AM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)