Talk:ATP rankings

Olympics results count in the point ranking

As far as I know, Olympics results count in the point ranking, shouldn't be added?

The points are: 400 - Winner

280 - Finalist

200 - Third place

150 - Fourth place

100 - Quarterfinalist

50 - R16

25 - R32

5 - R64

--200.45.96.108 (talk) 07:10, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

New Ranking Points for 2009

I'm fairly certain these ranking points are wrong as they changed at the end of the 2008 season. The new rankings can be found in the rule book - www.atpworldtour.com/en/common/trackIt.asp?file=/en/players/2009_Rulebook.pdf - on page 168 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.149.61.71 (talk) 19:15, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Ranking system disagreement

There is a disagreement between the ranking system as described here in comparison to the official ATP site. Here they talk about 13 main tournements 4 Grandslams and 9 ATP 1000 tournements, but the ATP site says only 8 ATP 1000 tournements can be counted and no more than 4 ATP 500 tournaments, which is true? Why are there 9 ATP 1000 tournoments if only 8 count?Eranus (talk) 13:06, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

The ATP 1000 series tournament in Monte-Carlo is not a mandatory event. 130.225.62.31 (talk) 05:23, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Ken Rosewall of Australia

Ken Rosewall of Australia was also ranked #2 in the atp rankings, according to the ATP site. He should be added, but I won't be messing with those tables...82.141.74.22 (talk) 03:00, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Clarify position moved from previous week

Although this article explicitly informs how the ranking system is, the "current rankings" template is present in several articles and it has a "Move" column. Although tennis followers and those who have read this article will know that the Move column is for position moved from the previous week, does any one agree that the template should have a note* at the bottom mentioning that the ranking updates on a weekly basis? - xpclient ^Talk 18:28, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Inconsistency with WTA

The WTA has the rankings in the main WTA article. I imagine this is because the ATP article is significantly more comprehensive and had parts of it broken out to prevent it from being too long.

That being said, after stumbling on the WTA rankings, I had trouble finding the same chart for the ATP because I expected it to be in the ATP page.

There are three obvious ways to deal with the inconsistency ("obvious" means "obvious to me" - I'm not ruling out other options):

1. Move the rankings back into the ATP article - Bad!: the ATP article is long enough.
2. Move the WTA rankings to a separate WTA rankings article page - Mediocre: The WTA article isn't very long to begin with and splitting it makes it....
3. Accept the inconsistency. There is already a pointer in the ATP article and, while it took me more than a single quick scroll through the ATP article to find the rankings table, I did find it when I looked closer - Mediocre: I feel the ATP and WTA articles should follow a parallel structure.

The perfect answer would be to beef up the WTA article such that pulling the rankings out makes sense. But the Wiki is volunteer powered and beefing up the WTA article would be hard work so I omitted it as an suggestion. The options I offered are simple editorial changes only.

I'm not particularly passionate about this. I just had some troubles and thought I'd note them so that others could decide what, if anything, to do about it.

Neil Smithline (talk) 00:02, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Top 20 and beyond

Does anyone knows where I can find the players that have been ranked top 20, top 30, etc, as in the section "Players with highest rank 2-5"? thanks --Tommy The Wise (talk) 02:22, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Ferrer

Why does Ferrer have 7220 points? Didn't he lost the first round at the 2013 Topshelf Open? --SteGrifo27 (talk) 19:37, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

'500' results

Article says no more than four of his results from 500 level events may be counted.

I can't find any such rule. Anyone know where this comes form? If not I suggest deleting it.

Update for 2016

Article needs update for new rules in 2016 - Davis Cup and Olympics no longer get points. I am happy to do the update unless someone else feels ownership. Cdm5599 (talk) 16:10, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

olympics no longer gives points

added sentence to the summary stating olympics doesn't offer points (with citation). I'm a bit of noob and couldn't work out how to change the table though! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:193E:600:AD5F:3466:281A:2AA3 (talk) 00:27, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Missing para on points awarded to losing players in first and second round qualifying matches

I was just looking at the Rankings pdf file on the ATP site and there is paragraph on points awarded to losing players of qualifying rounds -

Grand Slams 16 points for a last round loss 8 points for a second round loss

ATP World Tour Masters 1000 16 points for a last round loss (8 points only if the main draw is larger than 56) 0 points for a first round loss

ATP World Tour 500 10 points for a last round loss (4 points only if the main draw is larger than 32) 0 points for a first round loss

ATP World Tour 250 6 points for a last round loss (3 Points only if the main draw is larger than 32) 0 points for a first and second round loss

Pj quil (talk) 14:25, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on ATP Rankings. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141231175147/http://www.wimbledon.com/en_GB/news/articles/2013-02-15/201302151360936685683.html to http://www.wimbledon.com/en_GB/news/articles/2013-02-15/201302151360936685683.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:29, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Tennis editor needed

I don’t know enough to fix this;

For the Davis Cup points, from 2009 until 2015, point were distributed for the World Group countries. Instead of having an exact drop date they were gradually updated at each phase of the cup (compared to the results of the player from previous year and arranged his total sum of Davis Cup points to it. E.g. if a player played two matches in a semifinal but plays one the next year only that one missing match will be extracted from his points).[7]

The “points, point” duplication, and the meaning of “(compared to...” MBG02 (talk) 19:54, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

 Done --Wolbo (talk) 20:44, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

History

Is there a reason why wiki can’t have the rankings history?? Even if you had a table with the players in Column1 and their ranking every 4 weeks (if weekly is too much) - and even if it was only those that made the Top10. I’m sure there’d be thousands (or millions) of interested readers.

Ditto for WTA Rankings. MBG02 (talk) 20:02, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Félix Auger-Aliassime nationality is wrong at the top 20 ranking list (need to replace USA with CAN)

I'm sorry, but I didn't figure out how to edit yet. Félix Auger-Aliassime nationality is wrong at the top 20 ranking list. It says he's from USA, but even his profile page says he's from Canada. It needs editing on both the flag and the country abbreviation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Feliperls (talk • contribs) 19:40, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Futures points update

Since August 5th 2019 there are new point allocations in Futures tournaments, which were made retroactive. ATP neglected to update their FAQ, hence I added link to ITF article on the subject EgorKulikov (talk) 00:27, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Counting Total Weeks in ATP Rankings

Hello, regarding the tables including the players who spent the most weeks at any particular position in the top 10, I was curious about the calculations that led to the given amounts. There are a few discrepancies that could be explained by the methodology used by the ATP versus the one used by the author of that section. For instance, as of writing this comment, the amount of weeks spent in the top 10 for Roger Federer are indicated as 968, while on the official ATP profile, the data only suggests 908 weeks. The difference could be attributed to the weeks where no new rankings are published, such as the month post-ATP finals, and the 2nd week of events lasting a fortnight. Was the number determined using calendar weeks, regardless of ATP publications? And would that make the numbers on this page, or those on the ATP website the valid ones? 24.201.209.161 (talk) 02:56, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 2 April 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: pages moved. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 22:10, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

---

• ATP Rankings → ATP rankings
• WTA Rankings → WTA rankings
• ITF Rankings → ITF rankings

– While these tennis orgs like to cap "Rankings", most sources do not, as shown by book n-grams. Per MOS:CAPS and WP:NCCAPS, we should therefore use lowercase. Dicklyon (talk) 21:58, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

• Support: we use lowercase for singles and doubles now, so yeah why not? – 333-blue at 11:57, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support and suggest speedy close. This should be completely uncontroversial. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 19:24, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support per evidence and MOS:CAPS and WP:NCCAPS. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:12, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose: they're proper nouns. RZuo (talk) 21:02, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support would close this but don't know how to speedily delete a redirect as a non-admin, so just adding my support per MOS:CAPS instead. SportingFlyer T·C 11:39, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
  • @SportingFlyer: For what it's worth, see Wikipedia:Page mover if you are interested. Steel1943 (talk) 21:47, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose: ATP Rankings are proper nouns per ATP 1 2 3 4 5. OffsideGoal (talk) 16:33, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Per MOS:CAPS: only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources are capitalized in Wikipedia. The ATP is not independent of the subject. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:02, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

• Comment - for these terms capitalization it is usually affected by how they are used. In a header style: charts, leads, lists, both terms are usually capitalized in sources. In simple sentence format "rankings" is usually not capitalized in sources. I would always advocate for that same style here but I understand that a consensus of Wikipedia editors only want sentence format for all usage. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:20, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support - we use running case here at Ye Olde Wikipedia, and the fact that Other Organizations might prefer the Random Capitalization of simple Common Nouns as if they were Winnie the Pooh or something of the sort should Not Change the style that We Use here on Wikipedia. Red Slash 22:04, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Post hoc commentary

If something like this comes up again, see also MOS:TM (we do not engage in "capitalization shenangigans" to make trademark holders happy), and WP:OFFICIALNAME (we do not care what the "officialese" spelling of something is, we use what dominates in the independent source material, with a strong preference for major general-audience sources like news).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:30, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Russian flag icon for appropriate players

There is no encyclopedic reason to remove flag icons for lists including Medvedev and Rublev. This is not a forum for protest against Russian invasion of Ukraine. 174.208.192.158 (talk) 11:31, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Agree, I think so, Wikipedia in other languages show the flag of Russian player as well as then name of the country. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.44.140.149 (talk) 11:01, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

 Done The only place Russian flags should not be shown is when it concerns an individual event where the flags are banned. These rankings encompass the entire year and they were not banned the entire year. I have corrected it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:45, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

What existed before 1973?

Can the computation method be used to backtrack previous rankings unofficially before ATP did it? 2A02:2F0B:B507:AB00:79B3:5D07:FE0B:6843 (talk) 23:07, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

To a point but we couldn't use them at Wikipedia. We can only use things that are published in other places, we can't do original research. The problem if you do it yourself is what points and data could you use? They change now every decade. Plus players know what to strive for ahead of time now... you'd be putting up point finish lines that the players had no idea existed. And the point system doesn't always get it correct even today. Look at 2017. No chance in years past that Federer isn't deemed No. 1 by every ranking expert over Nadal whether it's 1910, 1940, or 1970. But Nadal had more points in 2017. At Wikipedia we simply stick with sources as best we can. We do have the sourced expert picks for No. 1 at World number 1 ranked male tennis players. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:12, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Just a question on ranking history sources

Does anyone know where you can find the official information about players ranking history? I mean - Where can you find the information about how many weeks (for instance) Zverev is in the top 10 or top 5? I don't see it on the official ATP site, but maybe I'm not looking correctly... It's a litte bit off topic, but I'm looking for this for quite a while. Thanks in advance. Sportfan82 (talk) 10:19, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

@Sportfan82: You can get all the player info from their bios at the ATP website, For instance here are Zverev's official week by week rankings. Of course you have to total them all or sites like Ultimate Tennis Statistics and other pay sites will do it for you. It is supposed to be sourced in the articles as to where they got the info though alas that's not always the case. Cheers. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:27, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Most weeks in top 2

The (amazing!) Ultimate Tennis Statistics site says that Sampras was also (just as Lendl) 376 weeks at the top 2. Can we assume that is correct? And therefore - add him to the list?

And Connors is 387 weeks!

Sportfan82 (talk) 10:02, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

What does the ATP or other sources say? We usually use ATP as a source but it has been shown that sometimes they are wrong.... especially the further back we go. Are there any other sources that can confirm the Ultimate Tennis site info on these players? Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:17, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

I just counted the number of weeks that Sampras was on number 2 (on his profile page at the Atp website). And it is, indeed, 90 weeks! So, 90 and 286 is a total of 376 weeks. But, I don't know if that's reliable enough.....

I cannot find other sites/sources who can confirm that number. Do you know any?? Sportfan82 (talk) 09:24, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

I would say if you have a source like Ultimate Tennis that says 376 weeks in the top 2, and we can confirm by counting the sourced ATP weeks that it is indeed 376 weeks, that should be good enough. Even the ATP site is a source and not original research as all you did was count what they give you. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:16, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Countable tournaments

I tried today to check how many ATP500 and 250 are countable and it seemed clear here that it s 7 including the monte carlo M1000 (if profitable) Now i check with Adrian Mannarino (for which i know he plays and score a lot of points in ATP250) and he has 9. And 3 of his mandatory M1000 are "uncountable" So the ranking explanation here need a lifting or at least clarification. (I checked Mannarino was in the entry list at the canadian M1000)

To conclude, i also have trouble with the sentence "For a better result within the same tour type to be transposed one has to wait for the expiry of the first worse result from previous year". It s clearly not the case or my english fails me. If you win a 250, your worst 250 results becomes uncountable, or am i missing something ? Alfonsedode (talk) 08:48, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

I found this note on the atp ranking Faq :

"Note: In 2023, due to no points being awarded at 2022 Wimbledon and the cancellation of the 2022 Rolex Shanghai Masters, players will count three Grand Slams, seven mandatory Masters 1000s and nine ‘best other’ events. At the conclusion of 2023 Wimbledon, any player who is a direct acceptance into the Wimbledon main draw must count his 2023 Wimbledon points, reducing the number of 'best other' events he counts to eight. A player who is also a direct acceptance into the 2023 Rolex Shanghai Masters must count his 2023 Shanghai points, further reducing the number of 'best other' results he counts to seven."

Seems now that Shangai has passed a few weeks back, only 7 should count and all mandatory M1000 --Alfonsedode (talk) 10:05, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

ok, i have found and checked the atp rulebook 2023 : "

In a 52-week period, players shall be permitted to replace up to 3 mandatory ATP Tour Masters 1000

singles main draw results with a better score from an ATP Tour 500 or ATP Tour 250

event, when the replacing score is achieved after the ATP Tour Masters 1000 score

that is being replaced. Notwithstanding the foregoing sentence, the player must have

competed and not received a ranking penalty at the ATP Tour Masters 1000 tournament to replace the score."

The main article should be a bit rewritten, i dont have time now ~~ Alfonsedode (talk) 10:10, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Table of points distribution error

Ruud and Sinner ATP Finals cells are round the wrong way. 146.198.145.101 (talk) 09:22, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

ATP changes point allocation for singles tournaments

ATP Releases Pepperstone ATP Rankings Breakdown Updates, but this for some reason only affects singles tournaments while in doubles the system remains unchanged. What is the best way to reflect this in the table - create separate tables for singles and doubles or just add another row for doubles at every level (GS, ATP 1000, ATP 500 etc.)? Deinocheirus (talk) 13:08, 18 January 2024 (UTC)