Wow, I'm contrasting the rankings of those men vs the women playing at the same event. Those men's rankings are all about double those of the women, much much lower! 

wolf wrote:

---

That's because you get a lot more points for winning a women's 25k then a men's, despite the same prize money it's not really the same level of tournament.

---

 Yes, and if I've understood the transition tour rules properly (big 'if'), all the women's 25k points from this year will be kept as WTA points next year.

But, for the men, it's only the winner and the finalist who get any ATP points for next year for a 25k.

So, again, the women's 25k is far more important.

Yes it has all become a bit inconsistent ( well more inconsistent ) since setting both the men's and women's bottom two levels at 15K and 25K ( while being so different pointswise ).

I used to consider women's 10K as a sort of futures and their 25K as a sort of low level challenger, between a futures and a normal men's challenger.

And pointswise the 25K still attracts fields more in keeping with that. The prizemoney should really be quite a bit more.

JonH wrote:

---

is it me, or is the general structure of events in the mens easier to understand? Futures are quite clear, 15k and 25k. next season the 5 levels at Challenger will be ATP Challenger 70, 80, 95, 110 and 125 , presumably being the points the winner gets, so tying in with the main tour with ATP 250, 500, 1000 and Slam at 2000. Not sure if the Futures events will carry 15 and 25 points respectively for the winner but that all feels quite straightforward and easy to me.

I always feel v murky about the womens side if I am honest...which may be in large part due to the branding - premier mandatory, premier 5 and premier, international, 125 etc all feels quite spread out and then we fall down into the womens Challengers and ITF levels where I get very lost...

-- Edited by JonH on Wednesday 19th of September 2018 05:13:55 PM

---

 I completely feel the same way about ATP/WTA. A 250/500 etc is so easy to understand but what is a premier 5 when it's at home??

wolf wrote:

---

Easy to understand doesn't necessarily mean it's better.

---

 depends what you mean by better ? As a fan,  certainly it's better. In terms of fairly rewarding players, at all levels of the game, not sure how you'd measure that? 

QF: [5] Evan Hoyt (GBR) WR 693 v Jeremy Beale (AUS) WR 497

QF: (q) [3] Brydan Klein (GBR) WR 635 v [8] Issei Okamura (JPN) WR 872 (CH 574 two years ago)

QF: [6] Ryan Storrie (GBR) WR 737 v (wc) Jayden Court* (AUS) UNR, born 2000, (CH JWR 310)


(the second seed was put out by Bourchier who then lost to the unranked youngster, Court)