What is the current ATP ranking system?
The current ATP rankings are decided by taking the cumulative amount of points from a player’s 19 best performances at tournaments within the past 52 weeks, increasing to 20 if said player qualifies for the Nitto ATP Finals. The amount of points received from an individual tournament depends on the type of tournament, as well as what round the player makes it to. For instance, the champion of a Grand Slam is awarded 2000 ATP points, whereas the finalist is awarded 1300, the semifinalists awarded 800, and so on and so forth (for full details on this refer to this link).
Pros of the current system
The strongest argument for the current system is undoubtedly that players cannot lose points from playing in a tournament, regardless of their performance. This allows players to enter as many tournaments as they want without fearing a drop in their rank—beneficial for both the fans and the expansion of tennis.
Cons of the current system
While the current system does have its upsides, its not a perfect system either. My main complaint is the fact that points won from tournaments is predetermined. What this means is player A winning a grand slam by beating 0 players in the top 20 will gain the same amount of points as player B winning a grand slam beating 5 top 10 players. Even though players A and B have the same number of points, a strong argument can be made that player B is the stronger player due to his significantly more challenging path to victory. While this specific example may be unrealistic, scenarios not far off have occurred in the past.
A good example of this phenomenon is Roland Garros 2022. Prior to the tournament, the three biggest favorites to win the tournament was Novak Djokovic, followed by Carlos Alcaraz, and then Rafael Nadal. Despite this, Djokovic, Nadal, and Alcaraz were all placed on the same side of the draw for Roland Garros. While the reasons behind Djokovic’s and Nadal’s status as favorites are needless to explain, Alcaraz was the third biggest favorite due to his noteworthy victories over both Djokovic and Nadal on clay en route to becoming the champion at the Madrid Open, just one month before the French Open. Even though the entire world of tennis agreed Carlos’ championship was one of the best tournament performances of the year, he was awarded the same amount of ATP points as any other Masters 1000 winner. This led to an unfairly stacked side of the draw, and sure enough, when Nadal managed to escape many tough matches, he defeated Casper Ruud 6-3 ,6-3, 6-0 in the quickest French Open final of all time. This indicates one side of the draw was significantly more competitive than the other.
Why an Elo system can fix this
For those who are unaware of what an Elo system is, let me explain it in a few sentences; an ELO system is essentially a ranking system where points awarded are determined by your opponents rating. For instance, beating a player with a significantly higher rating than you will give you more points that beating a player with a similar rating or less. However, losing to an opponent with a much lower rating also leads to a dramatic loss of points, and vice versa. Elo systems are commonly used in video games as well as chess.
A successful implementation of an Elo system means player rankings would more accurately reflect the level of the players. This would mean more fairly seeded draws, better for both the players and the fans.
Potential downsides
An Elo rating system is not a foreign concept to tennis—Universal Tennis Rating, more formally known as UTR, gives Elo ratings to tennis players and has already been implemented at amateur and junior levels. The issue with UTR however, is that due to its nature, players often avoid opponents with lower ratings to remove the risk of losing large amounts of points, even if it means withdrawing from the entire tournament—a major problem with UTR tournaments.
What’s the solution?
My proposal is a rating system that combines both an Elo system with the current rating system, taking the positive elements from both. There are two aspects I would keep from the current system; firstly, I want to keep the idea of a 52 week rolling point system. This creates the perfect balance between rankings that value recent results too heavily versus rankings that don’t value recent results enough. Secondly, I would like to keep the idea of predetermined point values based on the round of the tournament and the type of tournament as well. This ensures rightfully earned points for deep runs at tournaments, regardless of the opponent.
On top of these features from the current ranking system, I would like to include a modified aspect of the Elo system. I propose to keep the element of points gained being determined by your opponent’s rating—but only for the victor. What this means is the ratings of players who are defeated will be unaffected whereas the winning player’s rating has the opportunity to be massively boosted by beating a top opponent. This modification on the Elo system removes the risk for top players playing in tournaments against lower ranked players, whilst also rewarding lower ranked players for pulling off impressive upsets.
All in all, I believe this ranking system will provide more accurate rankings, which results in better tournament draws, leading to higher level finals—moments that fans cherish. Additionally, this system will retain a consistent professional scene, allowing fans to watch their favorite players as often as possible. These implications will only serve to maximize fan engagement and strengthen the growth of tennis and its professional tour as a global sport.