Yahoo! Sport

I have just rechecked the new points and see that Andy Murray was deducted 520 points(Why?), Federer was deducted 580 (Why?). Tsonga was only given 265(Why?). These figures make no sense at all. It should be simple. You deducted last years and add this years. But none of the ranking points this year have made any sense. The YTD ones make perfect sense. Surely the points awarded should be the same. They either make an certain number of points or they do not. Totally confused. I had no trouble last year as they all made sense.
From Pauline, on Wed 13 Jun 11:49
I think this ranking system is working fine. Nadal proved his absolutely the Best on Clay. That has gone into the history books. It's not a mystery why Djokovic is widening his lead in ranking points. Nadal defends his 2000 points from last year's FO. Djokovic has a BETTER result at this FO, since he got to 2nd place, earning 1200 points. The year is long yet. The reigning champion of a Grand Slam is always the most exposed to losing ground when that GS comes around again. The next GS is Wimbleton, which was won last year by Djokovic. So he's got the most to lose - 2000 points. I think whoever stays number 1 at the end of the year should still be considered the current best in the world. It's still essentially the same rating system that the Greats of the past - Becker, Edberg, Borg, Sampras, Conners - played by. May the best man win.
From K T Low, on Tue 12 Jun 11:07
ATP should revise their ranking points system to avoid confusion. They should make it simple to be easily understood. Right now people are confused with their system. The simplest way is to give points to players who win their matches and accumulated points should be added and the one with the most points becomes number one, etc. With the current system it is possible that a number one plays number two and even if the number one wins he could become number 2 and the loser becomes number one based on their system. Watch and see that this will happen in the future as a defending champion who successfully defends his title does not gain any point while the loser does.
From EDDIE, on Tue 12 Jun 7:41
Once again I am totally confused by the maths in the points systam. Andy Murray had 7500 before RG. Last year he reached the SF which means 720 deducted and then the QF this year which is 360. I make that 7500-720= 6780+360=7160. This time I did not check the others. Can someone explain please
From Pauline, on Tue 12 Jun 6:41
T avoid confusion in ranking points just add the points accumulated by each player without deducting any point, etc.. This will be simple and easily understood. As it is now a defending champion who successfully defends his title does not gain any point whereas another player could outrank the number one player because he gains some points even if he loses. People who do not understand the system used by ATP will be confused or will be wondering why a number one player who defended his crown successfully will become number two and the loser will become number one. Just add points gained by each player and the one with the most points is number one, etc.
From EDDIE, on Tue 12 Jun 6:23
Simple, Nadal won ,like last year, no points lost! Federer lost before final,so he lost points,Nole did better than last year so he gained points!!
From IONEL, on Tue 12 Jun 5:00
Ranking points are confusing. A player who is number one and successfully defends his title can still lose his number one ranking as he does not gain any point while another player, a loser can become number 1 as he gains more points as he has no or has little points to defend. A defending champion who successfully defends his title should get some additional extra points. It is not good to see that a number one player who wins becomes number 2 and the loser becomes number one. This could happen in the current ranking points system.
From EDDIE, on Tue 22 May 17:30
Ranking points remain for 52 weeks, so only if tournaments are held in the exact same week as the year before will this year's result replace that of last year. In the case of the Rome Masters, 2011's version started one week earlier than 2012's, meaning that Nole's 1000 points for his 2011 triumph had already been deducted at the start of 2012's Rome. So the 600 points for yesterday's lost final replaced the points gained in 2011's week off (600-0=600). As for Federer, he will regain the #1 if he loses the final of RG to Nadal (or any other player that is not Djokovic) and then wins Wimbledon. If he faces Djokovic in Paris' final then the Swiss has to win both slams to regain the top spot.
From Menno, on Tue 22 May 10:52
Simon, explain to me why Nole got 600 points after defending his Rome title? He lost the final...but he has 600 points more !!!
From tudorcioiu, on Tue 22 May 9:34
The points system is not that difficult to understand. Wiki it if you need help.
From espspa2063, on Mon 21 May 18:49
So Federer to reach number one needs at least one GS, hope it will be RG!!
From IONEL, on Tue 15 May 9:51
Comment hidden due to its low rating. Show
Am I alone thinking that the point system looks ridiculous any time Rafa defends a title? He instantly gets hundreds of points, now after his Barcelona defense? I guess he wouldn't have lost any points even if he hadn't defended his title. When Fed defended something, he didn't get points and that was understandable. Why is there such a thing as defending points? Can anyone explain please?
From Simon, on Tue 1 May 19:20
if Nadal perform well on the coming events till Wimbledon, he has a chance to regain the top spot!!... :-)
From jhun-jhun, on Mon 30 Apr 15:09
I'd thought I understood the point reward system, but no. Can somebody explain why Nadal netted hundreds of points for 'simply' defending his crown in Mo.Carlo? A great achievement, but a defense doesn't mean the player gets more points, does it? And didn't Joko play last year at all, therefore come even more points to him?
From Simon, on Mon 23 Apr 18:54