Reading the Readers: Oct. 9

Steve, I read your article about how the ATP results don’t change much over the last few years. I’ve been wondering for a long time if giving out bonus points for beating high ranked players would help? I know they used to have them, but I’m too young to remember them, or what the problem was that made the tour get rid of them. Do you think it could make a difference?—William

I received a few messages about this topic after my Groundhog Era men’s tour post on Tuesday, and in theory it does sound like a good way to make the ATP a little less predictable. From what I remember, the tour scrapped bonus points—extra ranking points awarded for beating a top player—in 2000 because it wanted to make the system as simple for fans to follow as possible. That year also marked the beginning of the “Race” for the year-end No. 1, which was emphasized over the rolling “entry” rankings. The trouble started early, when the winner of the first tournament of the year, typically in Auckland in January, was suddenly the No. 1 tennis player in the world. What was supposed to be simpler ended up complicating matters. If you wanted to know who the No. 1 player was, the Race couldn’t tell you until the season was over.

Bonus points do complicate matters more by giving people one more thing to consider when they look at a player’s rank. But how many casual fans, or even serious fans, know exactly how many more ranking points the pros earn at Grand Slams than they do at Masters events? The obvious reason to bring back bonus points would be to give players more of an incentive to pull off an upset than just a trip to the next round. With the system as it is now, Lukas Rosol earned the same number of points for beating Rafael Nadal in the second round at Wimbledon as Richard Gasquet did for beating Ruben Bemelmans.

Of course, there are precious few upsets like Rosol’s on the men’s side today—it’s the less-predictable WTA side where bonus points would likely have more of an immediate effect. They would also put a target on the top players’ backs, and might skew the rankings within the Top 10 in ways that wouldn’t seem fair. Would, say, a win by Andy Murray over Novak Djokovic at a small event partially negate the ranking benefits of a Grand Slam title by Djokovic? And would the extra points that John Isner earned for beating Djokovic at Indian Wells make his ranking seem artificially inflated when he was in a slump four months later?

It would all have to be thought through, obviously, and the tour is hardly crying out for major change. But while we give the rank-and-file more money, it’s worth considering giving them more motivation to beat their betters and make the ATP a little less predictable.

Hi Steve:

The Aussie Open just increased its player prize money pretty significantly. Then Darren Cahill sent out a few tweets saying none of it should go to 1st round losers. He seems worried about injured players entering the draw, playing a set and retiring just for the paycheck. I thought it was unfair as I hate the practice of punishing everyone for the possible bad behavior of a few, not to mention the players who grind it out in the qualies. There were a lot of responses from tennis scribes on Twitter. What are your thoughts?—Michele

Darren Cahill knows more about the mentality of rank-and-file players, and when they’re likely to take the money and run, than I ever will. He’s also echoing the sentiments of legendary tennis tough guy Jack Kramer, who believed that first-round losers shouldn’t get any prize money at all, because they hadn’t done anything to earn it.

My first reaction was basically the opposite of theirs: The more money you put in the early rounds, I thought, including the first round, the better it is for the players and the sport in general. It’s a reward either for reaching a ranking over the course of the year that earned you a direct entry into a major, or for qualifying for that tournament. If you make a habit of tanking or retiring from first-round matches, you won't be playing them for long.

This year’s French Open, though, showed that Cahill's fears aren't unjustified. The tournament upped its pay in 2012 for early losers, including those who went out in the opening round. On the men’s side, there were five retirements in that round. One was by Alex Bogomolov, Jr., who cramped at match point in the fifth set and couldn’t move; I think we can safely say that he didn’t come just to pick up a check. But Feliciano Lopez retired with a rib injury after only four games, and Frank Dancevic quit after five games with back pain. There were no retirements at all in the second round. At Wimbledon, where rank-and-file pay was also increased, there were four retirements in the first round, and one in the second round.

Australian Open tournament director Craig Tiley seems to be on Cahill’s wavelength. He says he wants to raise the prize money in Melbourne for second-, third-, and fourth-round losers in particular. I can understand that, but I still think more money in the game, and a better living for all of the tournament players, is the goal.