Thread by @Yolitatennis

ATP RANKINGS & CORONA VIRUS

/Thread

When IW was cancelled, there was no doubt that points would drop on March 23: those were the rules.🤷🏻‍♀️

Since then, a lot of confusion has been sown.

When @JohnIsner asked Twitter for opinions I knew we were in dire straits.😝😉

1/

So I decided to add my 2 cents to a debate that shouldn't even be a debate,but it clearly has become one.

Surprisingly to me,many tennis fans,even hard-core tennis fans, don't understand fully how the rankings work,what the rules are, how ties between players are sorted,etc.

2/

I'd like to start by explaining what ATP Rankings are,why they were introduced&what they're supposed to measure.

The ATP began as a trade union for male tennis players in 1972.

In those days,the #1 player was decided by a group of tournament directors&tennis journalists.

3/

Tournament directors&other tennis authorities also decided the entry&seeding of the players for the Grand Slams&other tournaments.

I'm sure you'll be astonished to hear that they were somewhat biased,they had their faves,they were not objective. 😜

So players got together.

4/

They wanted an objective, merit-based method for determining entry and seedings to tournaments.

The tennis notables did not relinquish their power easily. But players boycotted Wimbledon in 1973 and in August 1973 the ATP introduced its computer ranking system.

5/

Some details of the system have changed over the years: how many points are awarded for reaching certain stages, how many results players are allowed to count towards their ranking, which tournaments are mandatory...

But one thing has never changed: the period covered.

6/

From the start, the ATP Rankings period was the immediate past 52 weeks, except for the ATP Finals.

The ATP produces a list, every Monday, counting the points earned by every player in the past 52 weeks. That's what rankings measure: performance over the previous 52 weeks.

7/

Every player has the right to count his ranking points towards his ranking, according to certain rules, for exactly 52 weeks.

The word "defend" points was not part of the system. It has become a useful word, in practice, but the rankings were never about that.

8/

In the past, points were awarded for the Olympics. They still dropped after 52 weeks exactly.

Tournaments have been cancelled or postponed: their points have dropped after 52 weeks exactly. Even if it meant a player going from #39 to #58 to #39 in 2 consecutive weeks. 🤷🏻‍♀️😀

9/

In 2009, the ranking system was completely changed in terms of how many points were awarded. Some were doubled, some were increased by another proportion.

But it was put in place gradually. The points earned in 2008 all dropped after 52 weeks, each at their own time.

10/

The new system was applied as the 2009 season got underway.

Rafa got 2000 points for winning the Australian Open in 2009, while the other 3 slam reigning champs were counting 1000.

The Madrid Masters was moved from October to May. But the points earned in October

11/

lasted 52 weeks, as per the rules. So when Madrid was played in May 2009, players earned points which also lasted 52 weeks. So for a few months, some players counted 2 different points for the 2 Madrid tournaments.

But the 52-week rule was not broken.

It all evened out.

12/

The fact remained that at every single point in time,the ATP Rankings reflected past performance over the immediate previous 52 weeks.

The #1 player in the world has *always* been the one who earned the most ranking points in the previous 52 weeks.

Should that change?

13/

We are living extraordinary circumstances. For the first time many tournaments have been postponed/cancelled. No tennis can be played.

But a lot of tennis has been played in the last 52 weeks. We can still count how many ranking points each player earned.

14/

If we "freeze" the rankings, as some suggest, rankings would stop measuring what they have measured for almost 50 years. They would not be merit-based, but guess-based. Some points would last 52 weeks... others 54, 56, 58 weeks.

What would be the justification for that?

14/

The players are all in the same boat: they could not play certain events. None of them.

Why should we give some some points based on what they did a year ago? Say a player was injured last year&couldn't play. Why should he suffer the consequences for 2 years instead of 1?

15/

The opposite is also true: some players had withdrawn before it was cancelled. They were going to drop their points.

Why should they get points that we know they were not going to get?

The fairest thing to do is to follow the rules and drop the points at the right time.

16/

Nobody got to play... nobody gets any points.

When the tournament takes place, then players will get their points, and will be able to count them for 52 weeks. As always.

And we can count all the points earned by players in the previous 52 weeks and produce a Ranking List.

17/

And that Ranking List will reflect what rankings have reflected for 50 years:performance over the previous 52 weeks.

There's also some talk of freezing the weeks. I think that'd be very unfair to many players.

They have the right to enjoy their ranking points for 52 weeks.

18/

Freezing the weeks would rob them of weeks in the top 10, top 50, top 100.

Think of Medvedev, to name one example, who earned the bulk of his points at the end of last season. He has every right to enjoy the fruits of those points during a period where he defends little.

19/

I don't see any reason why we shouldn't continue following the rules, dropping points when they're supposed to drop,counting performance over the past 52 weeks, as it's always been done, since computer rankings started.

When play resumes, players will start earning points.

20/

If (knock on wood)this state of affairs continues for a year, we'll have a list in which all players have 0 points, which will reflect the fact that nobody played professional tennis for a year.

It's perfect!

Accurate, mathematically simple, fair, rule-abiding.

21/

I really fail to see what the debate is all about.

Following the rules is the simpler, the fairer, the easier thing to do. It's also the right thing to do.

We have already had play disrupted.

Do we also need to break the rules,for the first time ever?

I don't think so.

22/