Injured Rankings

One year rankings have an inherent downside, mainly that an injured player drops quickly in tournament seedings, and on return can skew the talent field in their respective quarter. Two year rankings make it difficult for newcomers to shoot up the ranks according their burgeoning talent.

Perhaps a modified one year ranking system is needed that allots points for any slam or masters that a player withdraws from due to injury; the numbers of points based on their ranking when injured. In theory it might help keep tournament seedings fair, as well as allow newcomers to quickly rise up the ranks.

I imagine something like this:
If injured when ranked in the top 4, quarter final points awarded.
For ranks 5-8, round of 16 points.
For ranks 9-16, round of 32.
For ranks 16-32, first round points given.

These could be given according to rank when injured for a set time period like one year, or perhaps it would be better given according to their current rank rather than rank when injured, so that less points would be awarded as time goes on. Obviously it would be of most benefit to top ranked players who are injury prone (like a Nadal, Del Potro, Fish, or perhaps a Soderling if he hadn't been out for so long) but it would also be good for the quarter of the draw that they might have otherwise fallen into coming back from injury.

Thoughts?

Very interesting coolnorth, I think the 52 week rankings are still the most accurate gauge and most meaningful. I don't know if I support a player getting points based on his existing ranking without winning points. On the other hand we have Nadal who my go into French open as the 5 seed and then he would be a deathmatch for any of the top 4 players in the quarters, like he was for federer at IW. I don't know what the best solution is but I think that for a period of time they should do more to protect the rankings of a player due to injury, some of that is being done already. Maybe they should look to a six month period in which they look to the last 52 weeks plus up to six months for an injured player. Something just strikes me wrong about earning ATP points for not winning a match.

Excellent first post I hope you stick around and give us more of your interesting ideas.

By the way I am sure you will get a lot of action on your post in a few hours however this being a mainly european and english site we get very little night time bites on our threads at this time.

For me, part of playing a tennis match is actually being fit enough to make it onto court. If you can't, you deserve the 0 points you get,

Not sure if you are aware, coolnorth, but the ATP rules already have a ranking protection contingency which works like so:

Q. What is a protected ranking and who is eligible?

A. A player may petition the Executive Chairman & President for an Entry Protection when he is physically injured and does not compete in any tennis event for a minimum period of six months. The written petition must be received within six months of his last tournament.

The Entry Protection shall be a position in the Emirates ATP Rankings, as determined by the player's average Emirates ATP Rankings position during the first three months of his injury. The Entry Protection shall be for entry into the main draw or qualifying competition or for special exempt consideration. The Entry Protection shall not be used for seeding purposes, Lucky Loser consideration or for entry into the Barclays ATP World Tour Finals.

The Entry Protection shall be in effect for either the first nine tournaments that the player competes in using the Entry Protection (excluding wild cards and entries as a Direct Acceptance with his current position in the Emirates ATP Rankings) or for the period up to nine months beginning with the first tennis event that the player competes in, whichever occurs first.

Now I really like this rule. I reckon it is better than giving someone "injury points" which they did not actually earn. The one issue with the rule, and the reason Nadal was not seeded 3 or 4 at Indian Wells, is this part:

The Entry Protection shall not be used for seeding purposes

This is where the debate comes in. Is it going too far to seed someone based on a ranking he had 6 months to a year ago? The form he is in right now might not be a patch on where he was back then.

In Nadal's case, I think it was quite clear that he deserved to be seeded above Ferrer. One guy won the tournament... the other lost his first match.

But what about Soderling? He's been gone a very long time now. Lets say he plans to return at the French Open. Would it be right for him to get his protected ranking as a seeding (probably around 6 or 7, but I'm just guessing), and push another top guy out of a seeded quarterfinal spot? I'd say probably not. He'd be likely to lose in his opening match and it would be a waste of a seeding position.

So, I think the rule is fine as it is for granting injured players access to the big tournaments, but how to handle seedings is a big problem.

One potential answer is to encourage the tournament organisers to handle the seeding of injured players at their own discretion. This could lead to some sensible seedings, but on the other hand it could be abused and could lead to bias, or an attempt to "fix the draw".

Another option would be to come up with some sort of formula where points earned in the first few tournaments after a comeback can be applied to seeding. If you come back quickly out of the blocks like Nadal did, with a final and a title on clay, well done, you've earned a higher seeding in your next event. If you come back cold in your first big tournament, with no prior warm-up period, then tough luck, no seeding for you. I quite like this idea, but how exactly the formula would be calculated is another matter entirely!

It's not a bad idea, but I personally believe players should only be given points for what they earn by playing tennis. As unlucky as injury can be, I think it almost incentivises pulling out.

Never heard it suggested before and in many ways its an interesting shout, but I wouldn't like to see it brought in.

Don't mess with cogen on rankings he is the goat of them!

It's an interesting concept, but the problem, as danny says is it incentivises pulling out.

Are you only considering pre-tournament withdrawals, or does pulling out mid-tournament count, what about if retiring during a match when winning or losing etc?

You could end up with a hard-court specialist accumulating lots of points on clay or vice versa when they are mediocre on the surface.

I'm sure you could adjust your formula to take account of previous results on the tournament (or surface) missed, but if you do that, then why not just leave the rankings as they are and adjust the seedings.

Could you imagine the scenario where a player needed just Paris Masters QF points to secure the year end number 1 ranking, and got those by withdrawing rather than playing & risk losing? That feels intuitively wrong.

The problem I would see is similar to what others have alluded to if this were applied to missing single tournaments. How would a player prove he/she was injured enough not to play.

To use a hypothetical example using Andy Murray (I'm using him as I support him and don't want others to think I'm having a dig at their player).
Andy missed Madrid through injury last year and got 0 points as per the rules. Madrid again this year comes in cluster of clay court events Monte Carlo, Barcelona, Rome, and Roland Garros. He might feel playing all 5 would be too demanding a schedule. So using the criteria suggested he might feel given his current top four ranking that he could get a week off and a free 180 points by magnifying some niggle that he has and missing Madrid again (Tennis players are always saying that they rarely play without having some sort of niggle but play through it).

As I say this is totally hypothetical but being a bit of a cynic I feel that where there is a loophole some players would try to take advantage.

CoolNorth... Welcome to 606v2.

Henman Bill has suggested that rankings be based on progressively decaying points as the results get older.

Cogen's ranking protection information does offer some help. IIRC, Devvarman has a PR while playing in Miami.

Del Potro is the counter example which shows that if you play good tennis, the 52-week cycle brings you back to roughly your ranking rather quickly.

I think they should expand the protected ranking for the seeded players as well, the current system works well for the mid ranking guys why not apply a similar protection for the higher ranking players? Does anyone think Nadal should be a lower seed than Ferrer?

"progressively decaying points" I would divide points in half at the end of the year and never have any "drop off" during the year.

socal1976 wrote: On the other hand we have Nadal who my go into French open as the 5 seed and then he would be a deathmatch for any of the top 4 players in the quarters, like he was for federer at IW.

Yes a "deathmatch". Many here don't seem to get that the real problem with Nadal ranked at 5 could be for the other players. In particular Djokovic who's worked hard for that number one position. A bad draw for Novak and a repeat of the 2012 losses to Nadal during the clay season would mean he would lose a shed load of points. He wouldn't be gaining any protection from his earned ranking. I'm not sure what the answer is but clearly in this case seeding is not doing the job required of it.

Henman Bill wrote:"progressively decaying points" I would divide points in half at the end of the year and never have any "drop off" during the year.

I'm not sure that is a viable option, as it would favour those who have been on the tour longer.

Lets say we have a very consistent player who wins 6000 points every year. At the end of the first year, his 6000 points are halved and his new start value is 3000 points. By the end of the second year he has 9000 points, which are halved to 4500. By the end of the third year he has 10500 points, which are halved to 5250... and so on. Would make it near impossible for the talented new players to break through because the old players would have a ton of points in the bank.

I think the current 1-year rolling ranking system is good as it is. My only change would be to remove the complicated rules around how many tournaments you are allowed to count towards your ranking. I'd just let every tournament count. The people willing to put in more work throughout the year will be rewarded. Maybe put a cap on the number of tournaments which can be entered. 28 or something (most guys in the top 100 are comfortably under that, but some play 30, and there's a few crazy ones like Paolo Lorenzi who has played 34). Those who still want to do the current 18 (or less) can do so if they're good enough to get away with it.

Diverting heavily away from the main topic of discussion here, but I'd also like to see a more short-term version of the rankings. Call it a "Hot-90" (or something buzz-wordy and American like that ) to show which players are leading the way in points earned over the last 90 days. It'd be a helpful indicator of current form and show who could be making big moves up the main ranking chart soon.

That is a great idea, it would a form ranking Cogen. I even like the spicey name the Hot-90, sounds like some form of sexual enhancement medication or am I just highly perverted?

I also don't like this idea of points earned three years ago determining your ranking today, it is just way too remote to what a player's actual form is on tour.

Cogen. Some good news! There is a sort of "Hot 90" (Well it's about 90 at the moment). It's called the race. If you look realy hard it's still there. Nadal is number 2 in the race and not that potential "deathmatch" number 5.

I think it was thought to be confusing to have both ranking and race points "published" hence the decision to hide the race points. I still like to look for them though...

Yeah, the race is a great form guide at the start of the year, but not so much at the end when it gradually becomes homogeneous with the rankings! Someone can have a blinding start to the year and lead the race for a long time at the end even if they suffer a dip in form.

It'd be nice to have that accurate form guide through the whole year!

I may even have a stab at it myself... I've already got some of my spreadsheets hooked up to the ATP website to download the breakdowns of the top players. Just need to connect to the rest of the top 100 and then set up a filter which only totals up points earned in the last 3 months..... hmmmm.

Thanks all for the good input on an idea admittedly lacking polish.

As originally proposed I think that there might be ways that some players could use it to their advantage, as was rightly brought up. At least in theory one could see how a clay court specialist might pull out of a hard court circuit and gain more points than they would have otherwise. I tried to allot points at a level less than the ranking group would normally attain to make this less likely. For example, QFs for the top 4 seems pretty routine as they seem to almost always make the SF or better. However, Wiki helped enlighten my lack of tennis history by giving a couple examples like Costa or Gaudio who were as high as 3 or 4 in the rankings who routinely didn't do better than QFs on hard court. Though this is a rare case even during times when court specialists are more prominent, that is certainly a problem with the original proposal.

Socal I think your point of looking at players previous rankings in the year before could be a potential solution to potential abuse. Instead using ranking alone, points could be allotted on the previous years results for specific tournaments, leading to Injured Ranking Proposal version 2:

A 52 week ranking system as currently run, with an added change for injured players.
If a previous year's result for a slam or masters 1000 was a win, final, or semifinal, quarterfinal points would be awarded for the injured player.
For a quarterfinal berth the previous year, round of 16
For round of 16, round of 32 points given
And for round of 32, first round points awarded.

A potential problem might be that a player completely surpasses their expected result the previous year only to go back to playing at their normal level of tennis. A "Monaco dilemma" lets call it. They could look at the tournament, realize they aren't likely to do nearly so well this year, and exaggerate injury to gain more points than they otherwise would have.

To stop such a streaky fiendishly clever manipulator of a player from pulling out to their advantage, they should receive a lifetime ban so that they can realize their true life calling as an effective politician. Or, a combination of Proposal 1 and 2 could be instituted, namely whichever gives the injured player the least point either based on their ranking or previous year's result would be the point total awarded.

I feel most players enter tournaments for the $$$ they make rather than atp points and most likely wouldn't pull out of a masters 1000 or slam for just the points as it seems those are the tournaments with the bigger purses, they typical tennis players bread basket so to speak. However, to stop 'convenient injuries, we could say the proposed points to be awarded would only be activated for the second consecutive missed tournament or 3rd in a calendar year. Hopefully this would stop that slacker Murray from pulling out, though his laziness both on and off the court knows no bounds.

Yes good point that players don't really play for ranking points primarily they play for the money. Especially the middle ranked players need that prize money to earn a living as a higher proportion of their earnings comes from prize money, they dont' get appearance fees and endorsements. However I still can't get over giving a player points for not playing. To me this will unfairly further the already hiearchical nature of the tour. I like the idea of extending the current system to the seeded players and allowing a seeded player to protect his seeding for a period of time like lower ranked players can. If Nadal could have protected his ranking for a few months he would be at his more natural number 2 ranking right now and might actually be withing striking range of the number 1 ranking. I just like the 52 week model, and maybe we can simply allow an injured player 18 months to go back and measure is best 18 mandatory events for that time period.

Cogen, I was glad to see your post as I thought I might learn something, and you didn't disappoint. I had no idea of protected rankings. Nice to know they have precedent with injured players.

I'd agree with Soderling being out so long and not deserving of a seeding as his protected rank might have him at. To test the above proposed changes, say he was hypothetically seeded 4th when injured and made the semifinal for each of the previous years masters 1000 and slam. At injury onset, his ranking would gradually decrease as tournament misses add up. After a year gone he would have 360 x 4 + 180 x 8= 2880, about good for 11 seed. The next year by proposal 1 he'd be down to a quarter of that, 720 which puts him outside the top 50. By proposal two he'd be at 0 at the end of the second year as he wouldn't have played any of the tournaments the year before. Either of those scenarios seems reasonable to me.

I think you nailed it why more tournaments don't adjust draws according to recent play besides occasionally Wimbledon [i think?], they want to be perceived as fair. I think adjusting seeding of an injured player on recent play post injury is a better indicator, frankly, than past success. How to implement that is beyond me. I wouldn't be opposed to having unliminted tournaments count towards a players ranking either, that way it's in each player's hands how many tournaments to play to maximize results and minimize burnout, using their discretion to know how much they can take in any given year.

Laverfan, I agree DelPo shows how fast in a 52 week cycle a rank can be regained, and that is a positive thing. One year cycle rewards good tennis with a appropriate rank quickly, which is why Fed supports the 52 weeks according to google. That doesn't mean there aren't potential pains for getting back to that point.

Nadal might be ranked 5th for the FO after being out 7 month, of much consternation to his fans and as HE points out, to whoever his opponent will be. Bad enough as is, but imagine that he was out 10 months and would have no chance to defend some of his clay titles. Coming in as unseeded or double digit seed gives an unfair shake not just for the unlucky big 4 member who's quarter he is in but all the seeds who would normally expect a winnable match instead face an all time clay great a couple rounds earlier than normal.

socal1976 wrote: However I still can't get over giving a player points for not playing.......I just like the 52 week model, and maybe we can simply allow an injured player 18 months to go back and measure is best 18 mandatory events for that time period.

We are on the same page for the most part I think. 52 week model, check, exceptions for injuries, check. View on whether a player has earned points...[unsure]

I look at it that if a player does well in a tournament a previous year, he has earned those hypothetical points given if injured in the same vein that the player is given a protected rating. Does his actual ranking match his protected ranking? No, but since he has shown he can play at that level consistently, he has earned it. The question is how long are those points valid for, perhaps. The 52 week model says one year, while the two year model would say longer. I personally like the 52 week model myself, but with exceptions for injured players to collect points for an additional year at a progressively decaying rate like Henman Bill mentioned, though the model is somewhat different.

The same system could easily be applied to a two year ranking system as well, adding results of the third year at a reduced rate if a player is injured, to help make the rankings follow the quality of play more accurately.

Nice to see you have sense of humour Coolnorth. At least I hope it was that.

In my opinion at present no player misses a slam unless they are really injured (e.g. Nadal for USO & AO) so maybe some points allowance could be given for that. Although I could see some drwbacks with that as well.

However when it comes to the Masters events like Canada and Cincy which are pretty close to the USO players with niggles may not feel that they want to play in one or other of the Masters events in order that they will be fully fit for the slam. Might be badly put but to say it in another way what keeps a player out of playing a Masters event may not be deemed serious enough to keep them form playing a Slam. Therefore unless the injury is protracted over a number of tournaments (or months) I would disagree with points being given for missed Masters events.

You're out, you're out. Tough. Rebuild your ranking.

bogbrush. "Your number 1 (or 2), you've got Nadal for the fourth straight time on clay in the quarters... tough it's the luck of the draw"

Actually forget about clay it applies on any surface. Could Nadal still be 5 at Wimbledon even if he sweeps through the clay season?

BB, are you by any chance a straight talking, no nonsense, ey up northerner?

hawkeye wrote:bogbrush. "Your number 1 (or 2), you've got Nadal for the fourth straight time on clay in the quarters... tough it's the luck of the draw"

Actually forget about clay it applies on any surface. Could Nadal still be 5 at Wimbledon even if he sweeps through the clay season?

Yes it's the luck of the draw. I've frequently seen comments on here about how having the top four dominating the majority of semi-final spots at the big events makes tennis boring and how good it would be if others could break through. Now we have a situation where it looks like one of the other three would have to play Nadal in the QF's for at least a few months people start to want to change the norm to preserve the status quo.

LuvSports! wrote:BB, are you by any chance a straight talking, no nonsense, ey up northerner?

I'm not a Yorkshireman for sure!

hawkeye wrote:bogbrush. "Your number 1 (or 2), you've got Nadal for the fourth straight time on clay in the quarters... tough it's the luck of the draw"

Actually forget about clay it applies on any surface. Could Nadal still be 5 at Wimbledon even if he sweeps through the clay season?

Yeah, tough about the draw. Couldn't have said it better.

Same as one getting Murray in the Australian, the other getting Ferrer. Tough.

^ I believe Novak and Roger have put in a request to play both Murray and Ferrer so long as they avoid Nadal in the quarters.

Cogen wrote:

Henman Bill wrote:"progressively decaying points" I would divide points in half at the end of the year and never have any "drop off" during the year.

I'm not sure that is a viable option, as it would favour those who have been on the tour longer...............

Clearly so, but is it a bad thing to reward people for years of service and pedigree?

Cogen wrote:

Henman Bill wrote:"progressively decaying points" I would divide points in half at the end of the year and never have any "drop off" during the year.

I think the current 1-year rolling ranking system is good as it is. My only change would be to remove the complicated rules around how many tournaments you are allowed to count towards your ranking. I'd just let every tournament count.

I agree with this. The countables system is a load of annoying hassle, especially for the likes of you, and really complicates ranking projections. They should try it out for a year (i.e. let a player count rankings from as many 250s or 500s as possible) and they may find that no-one even plays many more tournaments and it works as the simple solution to count everything. This would also be a bonus for smaller tournaments struggling to attract players and make a profit. If they find after a year that many more people played more tournaments and distorted the rankings, and injured themselves, then they could look at it. What they could do then was say something like you only get ranking points from the first 20/25/30 tournaments you play in each calendar year and once you hit the limit you are highlighted on the ATP ranking site page meaning you get a zero pointer for any tournaments the rest of the year.

But OK that penalises tournaments at the back end of the year. So just say you only get points from the first 15 tournaments played by end June, first 20 played by end September etc. Or...better still...you can only get ranking points from the first 20/25/30 tournaments you play within any 12 month period. However you do it the key thing is that at the start of the tournament a player would either be highlighted or not on the ATP website page so you would know that for the current/next week's tournament they will either get a zero pointer, or ALL the points, no annoying calculations around countables!

And then the World Tour Finals would always count even if you were over the limit and you would have to decide if the same was true for slams or masters. Sounds a bit complicated because I ran through various options but once agreed on exactly what sytem's needed and set it up it would actually be simply and certainly make ranking projections easier.

coolnorth wrote:One year rankings have an inherent downside, mainly that an injured player drops quickly in tournament seedings, and on return can skew the talent field in their respective quarter. Two year rankings make it difficult for newcomers to shoot up the ranks according their burgeoning talent.

Perhaps a modified one year ranking system is needed that allots points for any slam or masters that a player withdraws from due to injury; the numbers of points based on their ranking when injured. In theory it might help keep tournament seedings fair, as well as allow newcomers to quickly rise up the ranks.

I imagine something like this:
If injured when ranked in the top 4, quarter final points awarded.
For ranks 5-8, round of 16 points.
For ranks 9-16, round of 32.
For ranks 16-32, first round points given.

These could be given according to rank when injured for a set time period like one year, or perhaps it would be better given according to their current rank rather than rank when injured, so that less points would be awarded as time goes on. Obviously it would be of most benefit to top ranked players who are injury prone (like a Nadal, Del Potro, Fish, or perhaps a Soderling if he hadn't been out for so long) but it would also be good for the quarter of the draw that they might have otherwise fallen into coming back from injury.

Thoughts?

It's an interesting idea, with some merit, but there are too many complications like would it apply to just slams and masters, it encourages players to take a rest knowing they at least get some points (half faked injury).

Perhaps something like this could be done for seedings if not for rankings.

LuvSports! wrote:BB, are you by any chance a straight talking, no nonsense, ey up northerner?

If he were a Yorkshireman he would have said, "If you're out, you're out, you don't get owt, you get nowt."

[quote="Calder106"]Nice to see you have sense of humour Coolnorth. At least I hope it was that.

In my opinion at present no player misses a slam unless they are really injured (e.g. Nadal for USO & AO) so maybe some points allowance could be given for that. Although I could see some drwbacks with that as well. ......what keeps a player out of playing a Masters event may not be deemed serious enough to keep them form playing a Slam. .....
[/quote]

My attempt at humour, yes. Full respect for all the effort the top players put into their game.
Good form using your favorite as an example.

Good point separating slams, which is unlikely any would miss on purpose, from masters, which some might miss. Giving injury points only when consecutive tournaments missed might only have to be applied to masters 1000 rather than the slams.

[quote="Henman Bill"]

It's an interesting idea, with some merit, but there are too many complications like would it apply to just slams and masters, it encourages players to take a rest knowing they at least get some points (half faked injury).

Perhaps something like this could be done for seedings if not for rankings.[/quote]

I think it might only have to apply to masters 1000, and could apply only after missing a second consecutive masters, so a person would know the player isn't just faking it.

I think it'd be fine if just done for seedings. I can't see many players arguing with having a system like this, one because it doesn't punish injured players quite as severely, and two because it makes it more likely their draw won't contain an on form post injury player earlier than necessary. Protects the established from injury but doesn't hinder newcomers from quickly rising so though certainly not a perfect proposed system, in that sense perhaps an improvement on the current one. To be honest it would have a pretty minor effect overall, just letting the delpos, nadals, and [insert your favorite player here who might get injured in the future] to get back to their pre injury rank more smoothly for themselves and their opponents.

Out of curiousity, what do you see as the difference between seedings and rankings? As far as i can tell, the main purpose of rankings is seeding, and perhaps bragging rights which could be used in marketing etc. I had never really considered the difference, but certainly if it makes it more palatable to players or fans to just modify seedings than rankings, than that would be just as good as far as i'm concerned.