I really dont like the new ranking system. I love how the ATP and WTA always like to change things to make following tennis easier, which usually makes it more difficult....for me anyway. One thing that I do like....no Champions Race....I never felt a need for 2 sets of rankings and felt the Entry System was certainly more accurate. I wouldnt mind if they showed us the Race again for the last 2 months of the year.

My major issue is the differentiation (or lack thereof) between the newly-labeled ATP 250 and ATP 500 level tournaments. Is there really a major difference between San Jose and Memphis for example? Yet Memphis is worth twice as many points. Same with Rotterdam vs Marseille. Huh? And South America still gets no Master Series or even ATP 500 level events. No wonder Del Potro wont even play there.

Also, the rankings for a player will count the points garnered at ATP 500 events even if you performed better (received more points) at ATP 250 events. Um, and this is only for Top 30 players...at least 4 ATP 500 events are mandatory or else you get zero points for however many you miss. I understand they want to encourage the top players to play the 500 events, but arent they discouraging them from playing the 250 events?

Also, there is a big disparity in the points for 2009 tourneys vs 2008. So, players who had better performances in 2008 will be rewarded more as opposed to the players who are more in-form recently.

Players are now getting points for Davis Cup....although I dont exactly understand how those points will be decided.

Listed below is the link with the rankings breakdown/FAQ from the ATP website. I'm glad we have a clear-cut #1 right now or else this would really suck. Certainly it's not the end of the world, but I think the ATP could have made this ranking system a little more fair and easier to follow. Then again, I could just be upset because Gilles Simon's early exit in Rotterdam 500 (40 points) knocked off his semi in Lyon (200 points) as uncountable. And that his QF points from Oz 2009 are worth way less than if he made a GS QF in 2008. But trust me, it aint just Gilles....if this new system knocked him out of the Top 8 though, you couldnt stop me from bitching and moaning about this.

http://www.atpworldtour.com/tennis/en/play...ion/rankfaq.asp

I've been complaining about this since they announced the arbitrary doubling of most points just so they could call them 'Masters 1000' events which - newsflash - sounds silly, not cool, in my opinion. And now, as you point out with Slam QFs, the arbitrary doubling for last year's points isn't even carried over into this year, although there might be some transitional balancing rationale for that (except of course why put in a whole unbalancing regime in the first place?).

I had no idea that FOUR 500-level events are mandatory - doesn't this defeat the purpose of the existing nine Masters events? I'm not really crazy about the idea of a Top 30 player having legitimate, hard-won titles at the '250' events actually being pushed out of his ranking breakdown because of a few early exits in Rotterdam and Memphis, where as you point out there is little discernible difference, apart from prize money (which ostensibly would draw a stronger field but not necessarily, if Memphis is any example).

It's all just a little too gimmicky for me, like the Star Wars credits background for the ATP website. Of course the top reason for my disgruntlement was my familiarity with the old system, which was stable and predictable and seemed fairer across the board. Assuming Rafa picks up Roland Garros #5 and avoids a flame-out at Wimbledon, he will have a phenomenal points advantage and may spend the whole year at No 1. Which, I guess, is how it should be; if nothing else it seems to be tougher to excel à la Davydenko and Jankovic in this environment. (Although people conveniently seemed to ignore that both of these players solidified Top 5 presences with numerous QFs and SFs at Slams in addition to their loaded schedules.)