Olympics and Davis Cup will no longer carry ATP ranking points

Not sure why the change now but IMO a good thing. I don't believe that victories in Davis Cup or Olympics ever should have awarded them.

Interesting that if this rule had been in place now Federer would be number two. Federer has 8295 points and Murray has 8685 points but Murray's total includes 545 points from last years Davis Cup.

A real shame and purely down to a childish spat between the ITF and ATP. We now have the scenario that the winner of the 5th biggest event of the year won't gain any ranking points.

hawkeye wrote:Not sure why the change now but IMO a good thing. I don't believe that victories in Davis Cup or Olympics ever should have awarded them.

Interesting that if this rule had been in place now Federer would be number two. Federer has 8295 points and Murray has 8685 points but Murray's total includes 545 points from last years Davis Cup.

To slightly amend a quote from the Sharapova thread 'But it doesn't matter prior to January 2016 points were awarded'. These points will be lost without the chance of defending them over the course of 2016. The players will know that if they have read their emails Looks like most accept it as well. From a quick look 8 out of the top 12 playyed at the weekend. Federer was injured, Spain did not have a match. Only Wawrinka was really missing. Will be interesting to see what happens for the next round as it is shoehorned in between Wimbledon, Montreal and Olympics.

Don't agree no points for Olympics, as I've said before I'd make it a 1,500 point event.

Davis Cup not having points will at least make it easier to work out rankings.

So, when do/did points stop being awarded? And will existing points continue to be valid for 12 months?

Points have stopped being awarded this year - so Murray/Novak get no points for their herculean efforts over the weekend. Last year's points remain until they drop off in the normal way.

Well, interesting then that the lack of points on the evidence of one round of matches had no measurable effect on the attendance of top players.

So, we are still going to have to factor Davis Cup points dropping off during the year. Not until about December/January can we completely ignore them from any ranking calculation.

Representing your country should be an honor (or in some cases a compensation for tax evasion, hint hint) and not be about points or money.

I personally am happy with the decision.  I am not so hot on tennis as a nation-contest, so not very big on either Olympics or Davis Cup.  Davis Cup weeks in tennis calendar are the weeks I do not follow tennis.  I am not sure I have ever seen a single complete Davis Cup match.

Another nail in the coffin of Davis Cup. Likely to be reduced to a best of 3 set competition for younger up and comers in the future. Whilst Britain deserved their win last year the tournament was the weakest I'd ever seen it. Murray more or less won it himself without a No.2 player to help him.

Excellent news.

I see the theory, retaining the purity of the ATP Tour, but in practice I think it's probably a mistake. The Olympics only happens every 4 years, and the distortion that participation is limited to reduced people of the same nationality is real, but on a pretty small scale. The case is stronger for the DC, but I don't think it really needs kicking when it's down. The fact that Switzerland, Serbia, and the UK have all won recently shows that top players do rate the DC, and it helps add a bit of variety and bring passionate fans to tennis.

I don't think it will make much difference to whether or not players commit to the Davis Cup or Olympics.

Davis Cup has only awarded points since 2009 and during that period most of the top players have dropped out for ties or longer spells as it suited them. Even though there were no points to be gained at the weekend the only current top 20 players not playing were the 3 Spanish who didn't have a match, Federer and Anderson injured and out of IW as well, Raonic who hadn't played since the AO through injury and Wawrinka. So I think level of participation will not really change. IMO even though there are obviously mismatches each player puts in maximum effort as they want to do the best for their team. You don't always see that at events such as the WTF.

I personally don't think that tennis (along with a lot of other sports) should be in the Olympics anyway as it already has plenty of other major events that get extensive coverage over the 4 year cycle. It is though and the top players all seem to be keen to play in it. Pretty sure that they are more interested in getting the medal on their CV rather than rankings points.

barrystar wrote:I see the theory, retaining the purity of the ATP Tour, but in practice I think it's probably a mistake.  The Olympics only happens every 4 years, and the distortion that participation is limited to reduced people of the same nationality is real, but on a pretty small scale.  The case is stronger for the DC, but I don't think it really needs kicking when it's down.  The fact that Switzerland, Serbia, and the UK have all won recently shows that top players do rate the DC, and it helps add a bit of variety and bring passionate fans to tennis.

There is no theory behind it. Its the ATP's way of punishing the ITF for not paying compensation for tournaments affected by the Olympics. Neither side will back down.

I doubt it will matter given how dominant Novak is, but can you imagine the uproar if Fed wins the Olympics yet ends up, say, 200 points behind Novak at the end of year (with 2 slams each)? There would be declarations that he was the "true" number 1 and all sorts of controversy.

I'm fine with this on the principle that playing for your country shouldn't be linked to earning points on ATP tour.

Good decision on both counts - and a long-overdue one.

I've had a lot of enjoyment watching various DC ties over the years, but it should never have had ATP points allocated.

As for Olympics : it wouldn't trouble me at all if I never saw another Olympics tennis match in my life. Have never truly considered it part of the sport, but more like a side-show.

But if, on the other hand, a decision was made to scrap (for some unfathomable reason) one of the Slams ......

Born Slippy wrote:

barrystar wrote:I see the theory, retaining the purity of the ATP Tour, but in practice I think it's probably a mistake.  The Olympics only happens every 4 years, and the distortion that participation is limited to reduced people of the same nationality is real, but on a pretty small scale.  The case is stronger for the DC, but I don't think it really needs kicking when it's down.  The fact that Switzerland, Serbia, and the UK have all won recently shows that top players do rate the DC, and it helps add a bit of variety and bring passionate fans to tennis.

There is no theory behind it. Its the ATP's way of punishing the ITF for not paying compensation for tournaments affected by the Olympics. Neither side will back down.

I doubt it will matter given how dominant Novak is, but can you imagine the uproar if Fed wins the Olympics yet ends up, say, 200 points behind Novak at the end of year (with 2 slams each)? There would be declarations that he was the "true" number 1 and all sorts of controversy.

Not from me there wouldn't be. Happy to be quoted.

But presumably Novak would have entered the Olympics too so at least its fair from a relative perspective. Its not about selective entry and Fed gaining points Novak couldn't. If he wins the points and Novak didn't then fair enough.
The bigger picture is whether they should all be allowed to earn points or not...I say not.
Professional sport and Olympics don't mix...and tennis singles is also about earning points from professional events, not amateur country-team ones. To be honest there are probably a whole load of sports that can be stripped out and stop it being the overbloated affair its become in recent years...wouldn't surprise me if they included darts next.

The Olympics has grown into an economical and political monster.  I think it was the IOC that led the way in corruption but was one of the first to be discovered.   The extraordinary costs involved in hosting the Olympics has sort of necessitated the need for commercialisation in order to recoup the inevitable losses.  Unfortunately local taxpayers always seem to be net losers.  Effort has to be made in reducing costs - then tennis can be removed and replaced with tug of war and caber tossing. A gold medal in tossing, now there's something to aim for.

It's a bad idea these are important events that are greatly valued by fans. It should be part of measuring our greats in the game. It should be remembered that the Davis cup and slams predated the tour and they are part of the history of the game. Some of the best matches I have ever seen have been Davis cup matches. Mac v Becker, Mac v wilander, gonzo v roddick etc

I have no problems with the Olympics where I don't think tennis should be included at the expense of other sports. In tennis the Olympics is not the pinnacle of the sport - there are the grand slams and the end of year world tournaments.

With the Davis Cup I am not certain.  As others have mentioned the Davis Cup seems to be part of the history of Tennis and incentives are needed to ensure that the best players are willing to commit to it.

Does the same apply to the Fed Cup?  Judy Murray was reported disappointed when Johanna Konta dropped out - although I think Konta did have medical issues to contend with.

Agree re great matches socal, but its only in recent years that DC matches have significantly contributed to ATP points...and it was done to make the players compete. But then the tour only has itself to blame...up to late 90s ATP ranking was Bo14 (I think) events, not its Bo18 and 8/9 Masters are mandatory...think it was 6 before. So players are under pressure to play more...which excludes DC and OG if they have a packed schedule and no points for doing these blue riband events...its a catch 22. If they had no points then the players wouldn't do them...so what gives?

lol...Nore...you calling the Olympic athletes a bunch of tossers?