Monte Carlo points unfairly do not count for some players

[Chris Koziarz]

Hi ATP ranking gurus,

Having read almost all about the ranking rules and watched current ranking at:
http://www.atpworldtour.com/en/rankings/singles?rankDate=2018-03-05&rankRange=0-100
I noticed a peculiar outcome for this week, involving Monte Carlo M1000 tourny.
Alex Zverev at #5, is dropping 45 point this week (the points he earned in IW last year) but his "Next Best" is 90 points, which is the first in the list of "Non-countable Tournaments" as you can confirm by clicking at Alex' points and see the breakdown. I'm looking at it because I'm curious why his "Next best" (90) is more than his current points he's dropping (45) and he cannot swap those number and count "Next Best" instead to to his ranking. Would he be able to count those 90 points after IW if he fails there and drops those 45 points?
Then I noticed one of the non-countable 90 point tournies in Alex' breakdown is Monte Carlo. So he has 8 other M1000 tournies, some with much fewer (e.g. 10) points, counted above. But his Monte Carlo is non-countable.
I wanted to compare how is this strange Monte Carlo counted for other players and opened Rafa Nadal's breakdown. And to my utter surprise, Rafa has all nine M1000 tournies counted, including Monte Carlo with a hefty 1000 points. How can it be fair? On the surface it looks like ATP wants to reward Nadal by counting all nine of his M1000, including Monte Carlo, because he's a "Clay King" and won there 10 times, while poor Zverev does not deserve to have his result in Monte Carlo counted?
I think Nadal & Zverev are in exactly the same category (both top players both played ATP finals in London) so the same rules should apply to both of them. But no, the rules about Monte Carlo that I do not understand, result in IMO strange and unfair IMO ranking outcome from it. I wonder why Zverev does not complain about this outcome. Can anyone explain how this unfair outcome has been achieved? Other example of a player even closer to Zverev's profile is Dominic Thiem at #6. Dominic's breakdown lists all of his M1000 results as countable (including Monte Carlo's 90 points), non-countable are 45 points or less. Again, how could it be that Monte Carlo counts differently for Zverev & Thiem?

 

[britbox]

Hey Chris. Welcome to the boards. @herios is a bit more a rankings guru and might explain this, but my guess is that it's down to the fact that Monte Carlo is non-mandatory whereas Indian Wells is mandatory. The top players don't have to play Monte Carlo... but Indian Wells is a mandatory masters and has to be included in your ranking points if you have the ranking for qualification.

 

[Moxie]

Welcome, Chris! I'll be curious if someone can explain this, too. Also, I've always wondered why MC is a MS 1000, one of 9, but the only non-mandatory. Why is it non-mandatory?

 

[mrzz]

Hi ATP ranking gurus,

Having read almost all about the ranking rules and watched current ranking at:
http://www.atpworldtour.com/en/rankings/singles?rankDate=2018-03-05&rankRange=0-100
I noticed a peculiar outcome for this week, involving Monte Carlo M1000 tourny.
Alex Zverev at #5, is dropping 45 point this week (the points he earned in IW last year) but his "Next Best" is 90 points, which is the first in the list of "Non-countable Tournaments" as you can confirm by clicking at Alex' points and see the breakdown. I'm looking at it because I'm curious why his "Next best" (90) is more than his current points he's dropping (45) and he cannot swap those number and count "Next Best" instead to to his ranking. Would he be able to count those 90 points after IW if he fails there and drops those 45 points?
Then I noticed one of the non-countable 90 point tournies in Alex' breakdown is Monte Carlo. So he has 8 other M1000 tournies, some with much fewer (e.g. 10) points, counted above. But his Monte Carlo is non-countable.
I wanted to compare how is this strange Monte Carlo counted for other players and opened Rafa Nadal's breakdown. And to my utter surprise, Rafa has all nine M1000 tournies counted, including Monte Carlo with a hefty 1000 points. How can it be fair? On the surface it looks like ATP wants to reward Nadal by counting all nine of his M1000, including Monte Carlo, because he's a "Clay King" and won there 10 times, while poor Zverev does not deserve to have his result in Monte Carlo counted?
I think Nadal & Zverev are in exactly the same category (both top players both played ATP finals in London) so the same rules should apply to both of them. But no, the rules about Monte Carlo that I do not understand, result in IMO strange and unfair IMO ranking outcome from it. I wonder why Zverev does not complain about this outcome. Can anyone explain how this unfair outcome has been achieved? Other example of a player even closer to Zverev's profile is Dominic Thiem at #6. Dominic's breakdown lists all of his M1000 results as countable (including Monte Carlo's 90 points), non-countable are 45 points or less. Again, how could it be that Monte Carlo counts differently for Zverev & Thiem?

If you check on ATP site, on the ranking's FAQ, you see that:

"The year-end ATP Rankings is based on calculating, for each player, his total points from the four (4) Grand Slams, the eight (8) mandatory ATP World Tour Masters 1000 tournaments and the Nitto ATP Finals of the ranking period, and his best six (6) results from all ATP World Tour 500, ATP World Tour 250, ATP Challenger Tour and Futures tournaments."

You see that those are the 19 tournaments contributing to his total (all players will have either 18 or 19, if they played the ATP finals). If his Monte Carlo Points were amongst his best six from the "rest" (the wording seems to be wrong, in fact, as it should mention MC as the only non mandatory MS event), they would count, but as there other tournaments with more points, it drops out. In Nadal's case, it counts, as it is among his best 6. Probably if get another high ranking guy which went out early at MC it will be exactly the same.

Hope it helps and welcome to the boards!

 

[Chris Koziarz]

If you check on ATP site, on the ranking's FAQ, you see that:

"The year-end ATP Rankings is based on calculating, for each player, his total points from the four (4) Grand Slams, the eight (8) mandatory ATP World Tour Masters 1000 tournaments and the Nitto ATP Finals of the ranking period, and his best six (6) results from all ATP World Tour 500, ATP World Tour 250, ATP Challenger Tour and Futures tournaments."

You see that those are the 19 tournaments contributing to his total (all players will have either 18 or 19, if they played the ATP finals). If his Monte Carlo Points were amongst his best six from the "rest" (the wording seems to be wrong, in fact, as it should mention MC as the only non mandatory MS event), they would count, but as there other tournaments with more points, it drops out. In Nadal's case, it counts, as it is among his best 6. Probably if get another high ranking guy which went out early at MC it will be exactly the same.

Hope it helps and welcome to the boards!

Thanks, mrzz, that makes sense.
Indeed, in n Zverev's case, the 6 best in addition to the mandatory 4GS + 8M1000 + Finals, according to your explanation, are five 500 plus one 250, where he earned from 500 to 90 points. The smallest earnings among those six come from Vienna (90 points) and drop in 2018.10.29. His Monte Carlo earnings that drop in 2018.04.23, are identical as Vienna and fall just short of the countable list. Perhaps Monte Carlo could be used instead of Vienna on the countable list, with the same total points? But maybe Vienna is used because, with later drop date, it will stay longer. However we look at it, we can clearly see from his point breakdown, that Zverev has been playing too many lower ranked tourneys (250 & 500) and even though he achieved good results there, the results are useless, because non-countable.
I always wondered why the "Next Best" column in the really best players' ranking (the Big four) is always 0. That's because players like Fed or Nadal do plan their calendar smart so as not to play useless tournies that do not count. It's amazing, that courtesy of strange rules, Monte Carlo, being the high M1000 level, can turn useless, as is Zverev's case. No wonder a guy like Fed, who is smart and very careful long term architect of his career and beyond, does not bother playing Monte Carlo. Because by the fluke of strange rules, the result can be dodgy, useless lemon.
Young Zverev still has to learn a lot from Maestro, not just playing but also scheduling.
And indeed, I agree the wording of the "best six" is wrong, it should be: "best six (6) results from Monte Carlo 1000, all ATP World Tour 500, ATP World Tour 250, ATP Challenger Tour and Futures tournaments" so that the result we are discussing here makes sense.

 

[Andy22]

I agree its bit weird the rankings but I do not think its unfair, Its complete fair, there is always a reason why its like that.

 

[Chris Koziarz]

but I do not think its unfair, Its complete fair, there is always a reason why its like that.

Yes, I haven't said that explicitly above, but having the complex rule surrounding Monte Carlo points explained to me, I also think it's not unfair anymore. Players should simply use their brain not only for playing (where they are alone on the court trying the best strateg) but also for scheduling their season. I like the fact that tennis is both muscle and brain game, and that extends long term as maintaining healthy body and smart scheduling.
The only critique that stands in my mind from this thread is that ATP did not explain the rule surrounding Monte Carlo points on their website so that the tour followers like mself are getting confused. A;so, accordingly, they'd better list the Monte Carlo points in each players' ranking breakdown in "Best of Other Contables" table, rather than in the M1000 table. That would better reflect the status of Monte Carlo points.