Two Polish girls in Milan (guess who they are)
January is already quite far away, so we cannot define 2018 as a “new year” anymore; anyway, 2018 regulations have introduced quite a few novelties in the Junior Circuit: in this article I will focus only on the ranking point structure, which I believe to be the most material innovation. Let’s see if I manage to write other pieces on some further changes later on.
The new point structure will enter into force on 2 April 2018: on such a date, the current ranking points will be converted according to the new system. You can find compared tables between the current ranking points system and the new one, here.
In an article appeared on the ITF website in last November, it was stated that “The changes are designed to ensure that the Junior Circuit rankings are a more accurate reflection of performance at the Junior Circuit’s most important tournaments (Junior Grand Slams, Grade As, and Grade 1s).”[1] The above principle has been to a certain extent applied in designing the new ranking point system as it is true that, in proportion, the difference between the points awarded to the winner of a Grade A or a Grade 1 and the winner of a Grade 2 will increase a bit. Though that’s not the end of the story, and it’s not even the core part of the innovations: the tournaments which will be more materially impacted by the reform are the Slams, the Masters and the Grades A.
It is not entirely clear to me if the Slams and the Master will now become a different category from Grades A or if they will remain classified as such, even if attributing more points; nevertheless, beside formal qualifications, starting from April the difference in terms of points awarded between Slams and Grades A will become much greater than it was up to now, as Slams will attribute the double of points than the (other?) Grades A: a slam winner will be awarded 1000 points, a loser in round 32 with 45; Grades A will instead attribute, respectively, only 500 to the winner and 20 to the early loser. Currently and up to April, Slams and Grades A attribute the same amount of points, the only difference between them being that the Slams attributed double bonus points than the most important Grades A, whilst other Grades A attribute no bonus points; e.g.: the winner of a Master was awarded 125 bonus points to be added to the other 250, the winner of the Orange Bowl or Italian Open with 62.5 bonus points only and the winner of another Grade A with no bonus points. It is, thus, evident that the difference in ranking weight between the Masters and the other Grades A will materially increase.
A further innovation is that the “mysterious” Junior Masters has eventually found its own identity: it will sit in between the Slams and the Grades A, awarding 3/4 points of a Slam: 750 to the winner down to 105 to the 8th classified player. More, the Youth Olympics Games have been “upgraded”: currently, they are equivalent to a Grade A awarding bonus points, whilst starting from next April they will award the same points as Slams do. Lastly, a further very material change: the Orange Bowl and the Italian Open will cease to attribute bonus points; thus, all Grade A will become now equal between themselves as per points awarded.
I believe that the increased weight of the Slams compared to the Grades A is justified. Maybe, with the exception of the Australian Open (which is usually a relatively weak tournament mainly due to the remoteness of its location), it is true that several of the strongest juniors play only the Slams and skip all other tournaments (including Grades A): as a consequence, in Junior Roland Garros and Junior Wimbledon one may find juniors who, being ready to turn pro, with the exception of Slams play only on the pro tour. Last year this happened with Andreescu, Anisimova or Potapova; this season it will most probably happen with Osuigwe, Juvan and maybe Danilovic. As a consequence, the draws of, in particular, Roland Garros and Wimbledon are much stronger than the draw of any Grade A.
The opposite considerations apply, instead, to the Masters, as up to now this event demonstrated a relatively negligible appeal: last year the 8 participants were not the 8 best junior players, for two reasons: some of the girls who were entitled to play, such as Anisimova, just didn’t show up; further, some of the best junior players are not at the top positions of the Junior ranking, as they play too few junior events (again, think, as per last year, of Potapova and Andreescu). Further, compared to the Slams, the Junior Masters have one great disadvantage and, thus, are less attractive: the girls competing in Chengdu cannot enjoy the atmosphere of “the big tournament played by the big guys”. In Chengdu, the girls will not meet Federer, or Nadal and not even Berloq. For the above and other reasons (remoteness of the location which may encourage players not to compete) I think that, at least in part, the Junior Master fails in grouping the best juniors and I believe this event to be an overrated one. It is true that only three editions of the Junior Masters have been played and future editions may prove me wrong.
As I find fair the increase of ranking points attributed by the Slams compared to the other Grades A, I am more doubtful on the levelling between the rest of the Grades A, i.e. the on the fact that the Italian Open and the Orange Bowl will cease to attribute bonus points. The distinction between Grades A was indeed grounded on tradition, as the Italian Open and the Orange Bowl are the longest running Grades A, and on quality of attendance: the Italian Open in particular, being perfectly placed in the calendar (it is played just before the French Open and Milan is close to Paris) offers an entry list which is stronger than other Grades A’s. For instance: the cut of the main draw in 2017 Bonfiglio was set around 80 for girls and boys;[2] the cut for the main draw of the 2018 Campeonato Internacional Juvenil de Tenis de Porto Alegre is set at 314 for girls and 160 for boys; the 10th seed of 2017 Abierto Juvenil Mexicano girls’ draw ranked 74th spot in the Junior Ranking whilst the 10th seed of the 2017 Italian Open ranked the 20th spot; basically, the same applied to the boys’ draws of the two events. These data are sufficient to demonstrate (without the will to insult anyone) that a difference in standing between Grades A exist and it would be fair that the same was recognised by the ITF, as it has been till now, through the mechanism of the bonus points assigned by Bonfiglio and Orange Bowl.
Though, I am also conscious that the above argument proves too much: the Grade 1 in Roehampton is basically the only tournament fit for a player to prepare Wimbledon: the result is that Roehampton’s draws are basically the same as Wimbledon’s: applying the same logic as above, Roehampton should award more points than the Italian Open, even if it is a lower grade, since, in real terms, it is a stronger tournament. Anyhow, I must say that the fact that the Orange Bowl which was first played in ’47, and the Italian Open, which was first played in ‘59, are regarded the same as tournaments with less history and standing, annoys me a bit.
The last innovation concerns Regional Championships, as they will “award the same points as the equivalent standard grade tournament (i.e. a Regional B1 tournament will award the same points as a Grade 1 tournament, a B2 the same as a Grade 2 etc).”[3] On this latter change I agree, since this category of events, due to the mere fact of being regional, usually offered draws which were not as competitive as Grades 1’s (or at least certain Grades 1), but awarded more points.
[1] See http://www.itftennis.com/news/276667.aspx.
[2] I can’t be extremely precise on these data since only the draws and not the entry lists are available now. The entry list of a Grade A is crystallised 35 days before the event; of course, after the entry list is crystallised, the rankings still move and the draw is made on the basis of the last available rankings; anyway, the above figure is a precise enough one.
[3] Quoted from the ITF website: http://www.itftennis.com/news/276667.aspx.
