New ATP Ranking System Courts Lunacy
by Christopher Gerby
As I'm writing this (1-10-2000), Fabrice Santoro is the #1 player in the world.
Doesn't sound quite right, does it? Granted, Santoro is certainly a
unique player -- he's the only one I can recall hitting a two-handed
forehand drop shot, for instance -- but under no sensible criteria
can he be considered the best on the planet. Santoro is not the best
in the world on grass, on clay, on hard courts, or on carpet. Alas,
to become #1 on the ATP Tour, all you need be is the best among a
mediocre field for one week in Doha. That's grand news for fledgling
German Rainer Schuttler, who won Doha last year and advanced to the
final this time around, earning him a tie for second place in the
ATP Tour rankings. But that's only fair, I suppose. After all, we
recognize the proving grounds for the true tennis legends -- Roland
Garros, Wimbledon, Flushing Meadows, Doha...?
"I was told there hadn't been a French number one since 1927 or
something like that. But that doesn't mean much," declared
Santoro after taking the lead in the ATP Tour's new "Champions
Race" rankings. You can say that again, Fabrice. The title of #1
tennis player in the world used to mean something. Ever since the
ATP Tour first established its world rankings in 1973, the top spot
has been reserved for a handful of the game's elite players. Now,
thanks to the overhaul the ranking system has been given by the
powers that be in men's tennis, the honor means very little indeed.
Sure, we all heard the complaints about the ranking having lost its
relevance last year, when Yevgeny Kafelnikov became the world's #1 in
the midst of an ugly losing streak. What the critics seemingly
failed to recall was that Kafelnikov had WON THE AUSTRALIAN OPEN just
a few months earlier. He would have been ranked #1 under either the
ATP's old "Best 14" system (which measured a player's performance
over the past 52 weeks) or the new "Champions Race" (where all
players start the calendar year with zero points). As Thomas Muster
said of the old system, ATP ranking points can't be purchased at the
supermarket. With his Grand Slam triumph and his uncanny ability to
play well on any surface, Kafelnikov earned that #1 ranking fair and
square. The accomplishment happened to come about while he was in a
tailspin, but he got there because of what he'd accomplished over
the course of a year. He absolutely did more than win a few matches
over journeymen out in Doha.
Perhaps the most maddening aspect of the ATP Tour's new ranking
scheme is the implicit admission that it doesn't accurately reflect
who the best players in the world are. While it trumps up the
"Champions Race" standings, the ATP quietly maintains a real, logical
set of rankings (now dubbed the "ATP Entry System") which are still
used to determine seeding and main draw entries. In other words, for
a player who wants to know where he'll be seeded in the next tournament
or whether he'll get straight into a given tournament without having
to play qualifying matches, the "Champions Race" rankings mean nothing.
That player would instead have to consult the true rankings...assuming
he can find them. The Entry System standings remain unpublished, as
far as I can tell. Check the ATP's otherwise comprehensive web site
and those updated rankings are nowhere to be found (although you'll
get several links encouraging you to check out the Champions Race).
Simplicity was the stated goal when the ATP Tour unveiled its new
ranking system, but where is the simplicity in having TWO separate
lists, particularly when the one which actually has a binding impact
on the tournaments is KEPT SECRET?!?
For the time being, players like Sunil Kumar and Sultan Khalfan are
ranked ahead of Andre Agassi and Pete Sampras on the list the ATP
Tour insists we pay attention to. Will that situation sort itself
out eventually? Yes, but the Champions Race won't yield a halfway
accurate rankings list until November, when the season comes to an
end. Players like Richard Krajicek and Greg Rusedski -- who rely on
the late-season indoor tournaments for so many of their points -- will
have misleadingly low rankings for the first half of the season.
It may not sound like much of a problem, but it's going to be a daily
annoyance so long as the ATP Tour promotes its Champions Race
standings and hides its Entry List standings. Tennis commentators
will be in the position of saying things like, "The top two players
in the world square off in today's first round match" or "So-And-So is
the #12 seed here...and he's ranked #257 in the world." For instance,
Agassi is tied for dead last in the Champions Race (he has no more
points there than myself or Regis Philbin or Bugs Bunny), but will be
the top seed at this month's Australian Open. Conversely, a player near
the top of the Champions Race could find himself unable to even
participate in the tour's most significant events. Heretofore unheralded
German Markus Hantschk -- tied for 5th in the world in these new phony
rankings -- will have to win three qualifying matches just to earn a place
in the Australian Open's 128-player main draw! This is supposed to be LESS
confusing than the old Best 14 ranking system?
In its rush to devise a ranking system which seems logical to the
casual fan, the ATP Tour has cut off its nose to spite its face.
The original system, while not perfect, was laudable in its ability
to give a fair assessment of who the best overall tennis players in
the world are. It took into account a player's accomplishments over
a 12-month period, thereby giving due credit to clay court specialists
and fast court standouts alike. If you want to measure "who has won
the most in this particular calendar year," the Champions Race system
is ideal. If you want to measure "who are the best players in the
world," it is a woefully inadequate mess.
|
|
The views expressed by the authors do not necessarily reflect those of this magazine.
https://tennis-ontheline.com/00/00lunacy.htm © 125
Last updated 26 September 2015
WriteFooter();
|