Should a player receive...

Murat Baslamisli

The GOAT
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
10,337
Reactions
1,055
Points
113
Age
52
Location
Aurora, Ontario, Canada
Website
www.drummershangout.ca
...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?
 

Mastoor

Major Winner
Joined
Apr 16, 2013
Messages
1,723
Reactions
470
Points
83
As long as No1e is #1 they should not introduce the bonus points. ;)
 

Moxie

Multiple Major Winner
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
43,764
Reactions
14,928
Points
113
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.
 

BalaryKar

Futures Player
Joined
Apr 16, 2013
Messages
132
Reactions
4
Points
18
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?
 

DarthFed

The GOAT
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
17,724
Reactions
3,477
Points
113
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.
 

Johnsteinbeck

Major Winner
Joined
Apr 15, 2013
Messages
1,022
Reactions
14
Points
38
^ 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.
 

Moxie

Multiple Major Winner
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
43,764
Reactions
14,928
Points
113
johnsteinbeck said:
^ 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?
 

Denis

Grand Slam Champion
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
6,067
Reactions
691
Points
113
johnsteinbeck said:
^ 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.
 

JesuslookslikeBorg

Grand Slam Champion
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
6,323
Reactions
1,074
Points
113
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.
 

Moxie

Multiple Major Winner
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
43,764
Reactions
14,928
Points
113
JesuslookslikeBorg. said:
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.
 

lindseywagners

Futures Player
Joined
Apr 15, 2013
Messages
135
Reactions
0
Points
0
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.
 

Johnsteinbeck

Major Winner
Joined
Apr 15, 2013
Messages
1,022
Reactions
14
Points
38
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).