Introduced in 1973, the system awards points based on what stage of a tournament a player reaches and how prestigious that particular tournament is considered, with the Grand Slam events offering the highest points.
While the rankings have become the de facto measure of a player’s standings in the professional game, they’ve not been without controversy. In this article, we’ll delve into the workings of the ATP ranking points system, explore its drawbacks and discuss potential improvements.
How are ATP Ranking points calculated?
The ATP rankings are updated on a weekly basis, with points awarded based on a player’s performance in specific tournaments. The key events considered in the ranking calculations include:
Grand Slam Tournaments
The four Grand Slam events (Australian Open, French Open, Wimbledon, US Open) offer the most ranking points, with the winner earning 2000 points.
ATP Masters 1000 Tournaments
There are eight mandatory ATP Masters 1000 tournaments throughout the year. The winner of each of these tournaments receives 1000 points.
The ATP Finals is the season-ending championship for top-ranked players. It awards additional ranking points, with the champion earning up to 900 points.
Points are also awarded for a player’s performance in non-mandatory ATP Masters 1000 tournaments, ATP 500 series, ATP 250 series, the ATP Challenger Tour, Futures Series and ATP Cup tournaments throughout the calendar year.
Points earned in tournaments are retained for 52 weeks, except for the ATP Finals, where points are dropped on the Monday following the last ATP Tour event of the following year.
Take a look below for a full breakdown of points awarded for each stage of each tournament:
|Category||W||RU||Semi||1/4||Last 16||Last 32||Last 64||Last 128||Qualifying|
|ATP 500 series||500||300||180||90||45||–||–||–||20|
|ATP 250 series||250||150||90||45||20||–||–||–||12|
A player’s ranking is based on the points total for the top 19 tournaments they competed in.
In the event that two players share the same number of points, the player with the most points from the Grand Slams and Masters 1000 tournaments takes the advantage. If they’re still not separable it’s given to the player who’s competed in the fewest of those events.
Sounds pretty straightforward. Why all the controversy?
Despite an apparently straightforward system the ATP rankings do attract a fair amount of contention.
The Repeat Champion Problem
Back in 2013 Rafael Nadal destroyed David Ferrer on his way to yet another French Open Championship. The next day he had slipped down the rankings from 4th to 5th HAVING BEING PASSED BY FERRER.
Well the system means that top players are effectively just defending the points they won at this stage last year. Nadal had got his full complement of 2000 points for winning at Roland Garros in 2012. So his total was unchanged.
But Ferrer had lost in the Semis the year before (ironically to Nadal again!) meaning that this year he’d actually gained 480 points, taking him up past Nadal.
You can only improve your rankings total if you improve on your past season’s performance. That’s not possible if you already won the thing!
The ranking system treats all surfaces equally, which can lead to inconsistencies. Players who excel on specific surfaces may face challenges in their rankings if they are less successful on other surfaces.
Likewise, often players are seeded way too high for their ability at certain tournaments. Stan Wawrinka for example won every Grand Slam in his career other than Wimbledon where he regularly got knocked out in the early rounds. Despite that he was usually one of the top seeds.
Quality of Opponents
The current system treats all opponents equally, regardless of their ranking or skill level.
Beating Djokovic in an early round of a Masters event could earn you the same number of points as slipping past an injury ravaged wild card.
So how could the rankings be improved?
A number of improvements to the system have been proposed over the years. A few favourites are listed below.
Bonus Points for Repeat Champions
Implementing a bonus points system for players who successfully defend their titles or achieve consecutive victories at a tournament would provide recognition for their exceptional performance and hopefully avoid the Nadal problem.
Introducing separate rankings for different playing surfaces, such as clay, grass, and hard court, would address the inequality caused by surface discrepancies. This approach would allow players to be evaluated based on their performance on specific surfaces, improving the accuracy of rankings for tournaments played on those surfaces.
Although it might somewhat kill the fun of an all conquering world rankings system.
Differentiated Points for Opponents
Assigning different point values based on the ranking of opponents would give more weight to victories over higher-ranked players. This adjustment would provide a more accurate reflection of a player’s performance and the level of competition they faced.
Getting to the Point…
The ATP Rankings system has been the gold standard in assessing player performance and determining tournament entries and seedings in the men’s game for decades.
But while the system has its merits, it’s not flawless and many are pushing for improvements to be made.
If you’d like to see yourself up there at the top of the rankings one day, why not check out our best tennis rackets for beginners. Or if you feel like you’re already knocking on that door have a look at our best rackets for advanced players.