Djokovic - Physical Demands And Points System Limit Teen Breakthroughs

Asked about the lack of teens at the top of tennis. Djokovic mentioned the physical demands but also the way the points are now distributed.

"We didn't have so much young players so successful at the top of the men's game," he told reporters in London. "Maybe [Milos] Raonic and [Bernard] Tomic, they're one of the two guys that managed to get to top 20, top 30 of the world, but not more than that. Maybe it's the competitiveness nowadays. It became more physical. Not just that, but also points system. I think it has changed. It makes it much more difficult for the lower-ranked players to make a breakthrough. The distribution of the points is different comparing to what it was in the past system."

http://www.tennis.com/news/2012/11/djokovic-physical-demands-limit-teens/40091/#.UJ_VBGfmKt8

I agree. The top players have easier access to ranking points. Access to the Masters tournaments, byes into the second round, 32 seeds in slams and the crazy amount of points being thrown around this week for winning even one match to give just a few examples. A lower ranked player would have to win many matches to even gain access to the equivalent of a couple of match wins from a top player.

None of us will disagree but it's broader than that in my opinion. Slowing surfaces over the past 10 years has also changed the way the game is now coached leading to narrower skilled players.

The points system change where they effectively doubled points always was always going to end up being a protectionist ring fencing for the top players. When you look at events on the Challenger, often populated with highly skilled players between rankings of 60 to around 140, the points on offer is paltry - on average about 80 points for the winner. Given you need around 550 points to get into the top 100, that's a lot of Challengers to win or go deep in before you can up your ranking to top 50 when you start to get automatic entry to ATP events...even then you need to be top 30 to get into the Masters. I don't know why they changed the system...it was to help the top players stay there in my opinion...they don't need 2 year rankings, the new system already does that for them. I wonder if Rafa would still be no.4 after 5 months absence under the old ranking system...?

Are you saying that points offered in ATP events doubled while that didn't happen in challengers? I never thought about it, used to think challenger points had doubled too.

Chydremion wrote:Are you saying that points offered in ATP events doubled while that didn't happen in challengers? I never thought about it, used to think challenger points had doubled too.

Oops I had no clue about it either, if thats the case then its clearly do affect the youngsters making their way top.

For winning titles...since 2009 the points changed FROM --> TO

ATP
125 --> 250
250 --> 500
500 (Masters) --> 1000
Slam 1000 --> 2000

Challenger $150,000 100 --> 125
Challenger $125,000 80 --> 110
Challenger $100,000 70 --> 100
Challenger $75,000 60 --> 90
Challenger $50,000 or $35,000 55 --> 80

So the guys on ATP tour have benefitted and continue to benefit much more.

A truly interesting read on the changes and resulting inequity is here:
http://www.tennistalk.com/en/news/20081227/The_2009_ATP_Points_System's_fundamental_flaws

Including......"Here is where everything broke down. For the challengers, the current new system overall devalued the challengers in both points and prize money. For my new system, I would pretty much double challenger and futures points across the board, just as for the ATP level events. This keeps a level playing field and allows for players in the lower rungs to have a legit fighting chance of making the big time. The prize money should also be doubled."


If one were to be truly cynical one might say there haven't been many youngster breakthroughs since the changes in 2009

This is very interesting about the points changes, although I suspect it is just a contributing factor. Talent will out. I think we are in a bit of a lean period as well.

I agree. A number of factors coming together is resulting in a dearth of emerging talent right now.

The change in points affects not only the lower-ranked guys but the ones at the VERY TOP as well. Times were when the semi-finalists at GS would get 450 and the winner 1,000.
So what then happened when they changed the points ? The winner of a GS got 2,000 and the losing s-fs got, not 900, but only 720.
It meant a stand-out year like Djoko's in 2011 put him even further ahead of the field. Of course, he then had to defend the points and we saw how a big lead can evaporate. But it's still tough on the guys who go deep in a big tournament....but not quite deep enough.