Hello everyone!
In September 2022, the FFT launched its ranking reform. This reform has profoundly changed the system by accounting for the points over twelve slippery months: each month, you lose the points you gained the previous year,
And you get a ranking per year if you do not compensate by playing and winning approved matches in competition.
This reform wanted to be fairer, as the FFT indicates on its site
It was difficult, when it was launched, to make an objective judgment. But what about two years later? Here is my opinion:
Even if it is necessary to remain cautious before drawing final conclusions, we begin to observe certain disturbing consequences (not to say alarming) of this new system. To illustrate my point of view, the best is to share specific cases that we have experienced or from which we have witnessed the cases that are not isolated.
It's experienced:
In a Young Open tournament, my son Elouan (30/1) faces Camille (30/2) in the first round. Problem: Camille was ranked 30/1 last year... The reform went through this, and Camille went down to 30/2 (twice, see diagram below...)
Camille trains regularly and often plays tennis. His level of play is well above 30/2, but he has been demoted. As a result, in his match against Elouan, he made short work of him, winning 6/4, 6/0.
If Camille had not been penalised by the reform, he could have played at a ranking equal to or higher than 30/1 between February and May. This would probably have led him to a ranking of 30 today, much more representative of his true level. In this scenario,
Unfortunately, Camille had to play to regain his 30/1 ranking and, no sooner had he managed to do so than the reform made him go down so sharply.
This summer, Camille entered Open tournaments with a ranking well below her real level. As a result, he crushed an unfortunate 30/3 who had not asked for anything, then waxed Elouan (30/1) without difficulty.
In short: the tournament draw has been biased and it's only the fault of the reform of the ranking...
... fairer?
It's experienced:
In the team match, we face a 15/4 ... Whoaaa great!! Oh yes, but in fact, it's a former 15/2 that lost 2 rankings and is now 15/4
... fairer?
It's experienced:
In team matches, I face and I do my performance with 30 men... old 15/5 who lost the ranking and who went back up to 15/5 a fortnight after my match... As a result with this reform of the ranking, I just take the points of the 30th when I deserved at least the points of the 15/5 ...
... fairer?
It's experienced:
Before the reform, I was 30/1, I just missed 10 points to be 30 ... Then the reform went there and I lost points ... then in 2023, with the reform, I went down 30 /2 while my level of play has progressed, but I did not play in competition ... We can logically estimate that I had level 30 ...
I signed up in a TMC NC-30/2: I was the TMC trap player: I won it ... (Is it just for the other players? No, I don't believe ... is it the reform which allowed me to play this tournament ...)
... plus juste pour mes adversaires au TMC NC-30/2 ?
It's experienced:
From October to December 2023 Elouan (30/2) to seek to make a perf at 30/1 ... but in tournaments, he systematically fell against 30/2 old 30/1 ... and he won ... But no performance for Elouan who did not beat players at level 30/1 ... Is it just for him? No, i do not believe it and it is the reform that causes these injustices there.
... fairer?
It's experienced:
Elouan (30/1) recently faced in the first round of a 23 -year -old table (30/1) ... Ha! Yes, but no ... former 30 who has just lost a classification ... Elouan loses (in 3 sets) and leaves the tournament without taking a point ... if Quentin had kept his ranking at 30, Elouan would have faced a real 30/1 taken some precious points and may have met Quentin in the 2nd round ... The reform has passed by and in a way Elouan plays directly in perf except that it does not bring the point of the perf.
... fairer?
It's experienced:
Elouan (30/1) recently faced in the first round of a Léon painting (30/1) ... Ha! Yes, but no ... old 30 who has just lost a ranking...
... fairer?
It's experienced:
Wilhelm 14 years old (Elouan's brother) was 10 points to be 30/2 at the time of the reform ... Then he fell 30/3 (unjust ranking since level almost 30/2) .... then he went back 30/3, but less played in competition there in the coming months, he risks going back down 30/3 while he trains 2x per week and plays pretty well ... (30/2 See 30/1 ...)
... fairer?
On a group of players of a given ranking (for example 30/2) we can distinguish from sub -groups:
1) Promotions: 30/3 freshly promoted 30/2 (this under group is itself divided into 2 under groups:
1-a The old 30/2 which goes up after losing a ranking.
1-b
Gets: this for whom this is their first time at 30/2
2) Stationaries: 30/2 which remain 30/2
3) Deadlines: 30/1 which loses a ranking
4) Outgoing promotions: those that go up 30/1
Each month, the reform of the classification makes the proportions of these sub -groups move.
Everyone agrees that basic the reform of the ranking does not facilitate the rise in ranking and that it is easier to go down than to go up. I confirm it to you with my personal experience and that of my children.
The following remains to be proven, but it seems to me that the trend is as follows:
As this scheme is repeated at all levels, concretely the reform of the ranking is provoking a general collapse of the rankings (spread over several years) ... In my group of 30/2, next year, there will be even players formerly ranked 30 downed 2x ... then in 2 years old 15/5, etc.
Is that just theory? Yes of course, but I verify it a little by summarily analyzing the evolution of the ranking over 2 years of all my opponents (in senior) played in the past 12 months.
Below the evolution curve of the ranking of all my senior opponents:
If I take the time of their best ranking as a reference point as their real level of play, out of 41 players after 2 years:
So, on my sample alone 1 in 4 senior player managed to rise in ranking after 2 years of practice and competition ... It seems illogical to me as generally a player progresses in 2 years, right?
And on my sample: almost 2 out of 4 players have been demoted to ranking: it does not seem logical either to the extent that the players do not fall into the game level.
I represented the evolution of my first 30 opponents on the diagram below:
Whenever a player plays below his best ranking, I highlighted him, he represents a Traquenard opponent.
On the scheme, there is a grouping / complaint in the median classification ("in the middle" at 30/1) with 6 players out of 15 who play classified below their real level of play.
I had the opportunity to analyze the evolution of the ranking over the last 12 months of 146 players and players of a club all categories combined ... competitor, man, woman, child ...
We can see that on this sample there are many more competitors who lose the ranking (almost half of the workforce !!) than competitors who go up in ranking... which tends to corroborate the different elements already observed previously .
To tell the truth, I would not dare to conclude hastily, because the truth is that my samples are not necessarily representative, it would be necessary to do much more extensive statistical analyzes to validate this study ...
However, it seems that the different data tends to tell us the same thing, namely that there are many more players who descend in ranking than players who go up and therefore that the proportion of players with a false classification does What to increase with time ...
Apparently today when we compete, we have a big ladle 42 % chance of falling in the first round on a "traquenard" match (a formerly ranked player) ... (Almost a chance in 2) and also 42% the next round ... etc in fact on tournaments or you will do 2 laps, you have (it's probability): 66% chance to have at least A tracking match ... What is from my worrying point of view is that this proportion seems to take more, in addition to importance over the years ...
It's up to you to see if, as a competitor, you meet the challenges ... In any case, what I see as I have been harvesting testimonies for months is that there is a certain weariness at Players who are starting to understand that to go up in ranking, you have to play all the time and win ...
Some players have been training for 2 years, are progressing in their game, but they are on site in terms of ranking, even worse that they lose the rankings ...
Some players decide to stop the tournaments, not only because of the reform, but clearly this reform does not encourage them.
It is only assumed but as it left, without adjustment of this reform, I see several things happening:
Autre conséquence constatée et vécue : chez les jeunes 11/12 et 13/14 ans il y a pénurie de joueurs de 3eme série et plus…
et pour cause, avec la réforme les jeunes joueurs classés 30, 15/5, 15/4 ont rapidement perdu du classement… résultats il y a un gros regroupement de joueurs à 30/1 incluant les ancien 3eme série
Tous ces joueurs ont énormément de mal à faire des perf dans leur catégorie puisqu'il y a pénurie de joueurs mieux classés.
Conséquence de la conséquence : quand un jeune joue à classement égal il peut y avoir une énorme différence de niveau de jeu. ( c'est du vécu… ELouan a joué des 30/1 ancien 15/5 … il a aussi joué des 30/1 fraîchement promu… évidemment c'est pas le même match)
Ce que je vois aussi chez les 4eme série, beaucoup d'anciens 30/1 qui n'ont pas plus que ça envie de courir après les points descendent 30/2 voir même 30/3 au bout de 2 ans...
C'est catastrophique pour les nouveau joueurs qui se mettent à la compétition et qui se font rincer dés le premier tours par des adversaires à faux classement...
Oui tout à fait...
Aujourd'hui que tu sois en match par équipe, ou en tournoi tu tombes tout le temps contre un bien classé "x" anciennement classé "xx"... ça devient ridicule ce système... Le pire c'est pour les nouveaux, on arrive on est motivé et on se prend des tôles parce qu'en fait on joue des mec anciennement bien mieux classé que leur classement actuel : c'est du grand n'importe quoi